January | February | March | April | May | June | July | August | September | October | November | December
Melendres Parties | Grissom Matter | Misc Other
Arpaio-Zullo Cold Case Posse/Birther Investigation* | Seattle Operation | Dennis Montgomery*
Notes: *For additional information on 2014 Arpaio-Zullo Cold Case Posse events, see here. *For information on 2014 Dennis Montgomery litigation-related events that are unrelated to Melendres, see here.
January-March 2014
MCSO RICO FUNDS: According to the Third Quarter FY2014 RICO Report published by the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, MCSO received and spent $0 in State/Local RICO Funds between January 1 and March 31, 2014.
Dec. 30, 2013 - ? 2014
★ Seattle Operation Exhibit: Zullo repeatedly texts Anglin, as reflected in a 10-page document – Screen shots of text messages taken off Travis Anglin's personal phone sent by Mike Zullo (MELC199513-22) – admitted into evidence in the 2015 Melendres contempt hearings as Exhibit 2079. See Oct. 9, 2015 Transcript (ECF 1466) at 2838. Dates and contents of some texts are not currently available; others have been incorporated into the timeline.
See also Anglin's Oct. 9, 2015 testimony at 2835-2840 regarding this exhibit.
Jan. 1, 2014
★ Mike Zullo sends a text to MCSO's Travis Anglin:
"Hey Sgt . sorry to bother
you on New Year's Day. I
just got off the phone with
the sheriff. unfortunately in
this thing he calls me
almost every day wanting
updates. He wants us to
meet him at his office
tomorrow at 3 PM to go
over this phone
information and he's going
to have a couple of
attorneys there are you
available?"
This text is admitted into evidence in the 2015 Melendres contempt hearings as part of Exhibit 2079. See Oct. 9, 2015 Transcript (Anglin testimony) at 2838. See also actual image of text here (Stephen Lemons/Phoenix New Times).
Anglin later testifies that the meeting referenced in this text does in fact occur on Jan. 2, 2014. See Anglin's Oct. 9, 2015 testimony at 2840.
See also Arpaio's Oct. 2, testimony at 2357-2358 (testifying that he does not recall whether he had a call with Zullo on Jan. 1); id. at 2358-2359 (when asked (a couple times) whether he was in almost daily contact with Zullo about the Seattle Operation, Arpaio responds variously as follows: "I was in contact with him on other issues, mainly too." ... "I don't think it was every day, but I was in contact with him on other issues." ... "I'm not denying it, but I don't remember it.").
★ Mike Zullo emails Travis Anglin forwarding E-mail from Montgomery to Mike Zullo, with subject line "Latest 1.5a" (MELC199417, admitted into evidence in the 2015 Melendres contempt hearings as Exhibit 2083). See Anglin's Oct. 9, 2015 testimony at 2832; see also below for information on rev. 1.5a documents.
While this email has not yet been made public, we do have some information based on the record to date, including the following: The email contains the statements “Covington now included" and “Seems ... the only people not talking to the Judge G. Murray Snow was Sheriff Arpaio and his attorney's." See Melendres ECF 1365-1 at 8 (Anglin Sept. 9, 2015 Depo at 56).
See also see also Anglin's Oct. 9, 2015 testimony at 2831; Arpaio's Oct. 2, 2015 testimony at 2327-2321.
★ One of Montgomery's timelines – "Joe Arpaio Brief" Timeline, rev. 1.5a Exhibit 2917 (PDF) as well as one of his charts – "Arpaio Brief" Schematic – Exhibit 2918 – are apparently created today (and both later admitted into evidence in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings. See Mackiewicz Oct. 28 testimony at 3727-3728.)
Both documents contain Judge Snow's name and purport to show connections between (among other parties), Judge Snow and the DOJ. See Exhibit 2917, 2918, supra.
According to Mackiewicz, he discusses these documents with both Arpaio and Sheridan. See Mackiewicz Oct. 28 testimony at 3727-3728. Mackiewicz later forwards these documents to Sheridan's assistant, with instructions to make sure “NO ONE” else sees the information contained in them.” See Jan. 9, 2014.
"Reforms imposed by a federal judge who found widespread racial profiling by the [MCSO] will cost taxpayers at least $21.9 million over the next 18 months, documents submitted by Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his top administrators show." Michelle Ye Hee Lee, “Reforms at MCSO over racial profiling will cost $21.9 million,” Arizona Republic, Jan. 1, 2014. See also “Joe Arpaio, America's most expensive sheriff,” Arizona Republic, Jan. 2, 2014.
Jan. 2, 2014
MCSO Staff and attorneys have a meeting about the Seattle Operation. Details about this meeting - including the date - are still not entirely clear, as memories of some participants differ.
★ ANGLIN'S TESTIMONY
Anglin testifies that "Sheriff Arpaio, Mike Zullo, myself, Captain Bailey, Joe Popolizio, John Masterson, Tom Liddy, and Tim Casey" attended the meeting, while Montgomery was present by speakerphone. Anglin Oct. 9 Testimony at 2841; see also Melendres ECF 1365-1 at 3 (Anglin Depo at 34) (testifying to same).
Asked to explain what he remembers was said at that meeting, Anglin responded as follows:
A. The lion's share of my memories from that meeting were Mike Zullo being the conduit between Dennis Montgomery and those in the room, and setting Montgomery up to tell his story, the same story that I had basically received in the briefing from Mike Zullo: that being Dennis Montgomery's background, how he ended up working for the CIA, and how he ended up in possession of these drives with this allegedly harvested information.
Q. Now, at that meeting -- did you bring documents to the meeting with you?
A. I did.
Q. What documents did you bring, sir?
A. I brought some of the attachments that were an e-mail sent to me by Mike Zullo, that being what I've referred to as the matrix in the past, and spreadsheets.
* * *
Q. And did you observe at the meeting whether the sheriff had any documents with him?
A. I provided him this document as well as the matrix. [2843]
Q. Now, looking at the matrix document, if we could turn to the end of 2072, please. You see Judge Snow's name appears in several places on the matrix?
A. I do.
Q. Did you wonder about the fact that Judge Snow's name is on this document -- ... -- at the time of that meeting?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. Did you ask any questions about this document at the meeting?
A. I asked Dennis Montgomery how he came to get the information that he used to fill these -- these boxes.
Q. What was his response?
A. He never gave a clear answer, but he said that he collected it as a result of the harvested information that he had from the CIA.
Q. Did he say anything else?
A. Dennis Montgomery's very good about speaking around answers, so he said a lot but didn't say much.
Q. Do you recall anyone else asking Mr. Montgomery any questions about the matrix during that meeting?
A. There was conversation with Mr. Montgomery on the phone. I was -- at this point had been briefed on a different focus of [2844] this case, and so that's what I had in mind, so I really don't recall much of this because I was kind of discounting a lot of this information until I had an opportunity to get some clarity from the chief deputy about it.
Q. What do you recall about what was said?
A. The only other conversation I specifically remember anybody having with Dennis Montgomery that day was the sheriff asking Montgomery, I took it as half jokingly, is if he was in possession of this type of material, why he hadn't been assassinated by the CIA already.
Anglin Oct. 9, 2015 testimony at 2841-2844. See also Melendres ECF 1365-1 at 3 (Anglin Depo at 34) (testifying generally as to same/consistent information).
Note. During his pre-hearing deposition, when asked why he didn't bring up the alleged Snow-DOJ conspiracy during this meeting, Anglin responded as follows:
"There were four attorneys in the room and an elected official, and I didn't want to bring up the conversation of investigating a federal judge in that context, because if it progressed somewhere else, I didn't want to hear the answer.
So I waited until I had a -- a private audience with the chief deputy where I asked him in that tone, you're not asking me to investigate a federal judge, are you? Because that gave me an opportunity if the answer would have been "yes" to ask to recuse myself from that investigation. ..."
Melendres ECF 1365-1 at 21 (Anglin Depo at 154).
★ ARPAIO'S TESTIMONY
See Arpaio's Oct. 2, 2015 Testimony at 2360-2366 (testifying regarding a meeting with attorneys, although it's unclear whether his statements actually relate to the Jan. 2, 2014 meeting or the meeting shortly after Nov. 5, 2013.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The witnesses testified about this meeting during depositions as follows:
Steve Bailey's Deposition Testimony
Bailey recalls a meeting regarding the Seattle Operation taking place in the executive conference room of the fifth floor of the MCSO offices. See Melendres ECF 1365-2 at 3 (Bailey Depo at 336).
Per Bailey,
- He doesn't remember the date, but believes the meeting occurred “after I was the PSB commander.” Id. at 3, 5-6 (Bailey Depo at 336, 334-35).
- He recalls that he, Zullo, Arpaio, Sheridan and "some attorneys" were present, along with Mike Zullo. Id. at 4 (Bailey Depo at 337); see also id. at .
- He does not recall Montgomery joining the meeting at any point. Id. at 4 (Depo at 337).
- "It wasn't really a meeting. [Arpaio] walked in for a little bit. In terms of his part, what I remember, he didn't stay for the whole thing. He walked in briefly with this and then -- and then left. Id. at 5 (Depo at 338).
- The purpose of the meeting was to "to evaluate how credible this person was. And I know Mike Zullo did a lot of the talking in that -- in that meeting." Id. at 6 (Depo at 345).
- He does not recall Judge Snow being discussed at the meeting. Id.
Tim Casey's Deposition Testimony
Note. Much of this testimony appears to relate not to this meeting, but to the earlier post-Nov. 5 Montgomery Fax meeting.
Casey recalls a meeting between some MCSO staff and attorneys regarding the Seattle Operation. See Melendres ECF 1365-2 at 4 (Casey Depo I at 246). Per Casey.
- He doesn't remember the date (id., but recalls it happening in earlier, in November 2013 (i.e., when Zullo and Mackiewicz were in Seattle) Id. at 16 (Depo at 258).
- He recalls the attendees as himself, Joe Popolizio and John Masterson, Gerald Sheridan, Jack MacIntyre and others, but he can’t say with certainty who (e.g., maybe Steve Bailey, maybe Lisa Allen, maybe Christine Stutz). Id. at 22-23 (Depo at 264-65). He recalls that there were about 16 people. Id.
Note. Sheridan testified that he does not recall being at this meeting, and neither Anglin nor Bailey testified that he was there; in fact, Anglin testified that he met with Sheridan after the meeting. This further indicates that Casey is referring to the November 2013meeting, not the January 2014 meeting.
- He recalls that two MCSO personnel were in Seattle, on the phone reporting back to Phoenix. id. at 16 (Depo at 258 ) ("[w]hoever was doing the speaking on the telephone were relaying information -- was relaying information about what the CI, the confidential informant claimed to have put together"); id. at 17 (Depo at 259) ("I thought there were two MCSO employees up in Seattle calling in."); id at 33 (Depo at 275) ("I thought it was earlier than January 14th, but my memory is there were two people. And my impression was they were calling from out of state...")
- He does not recall Montgomery attending any part of the meeting. Id. at 4 (Depo at 246); see also id. at 11 (Depo at 253) ("I state for clarification, I don't believe the time I was present that there was the CI on the telephone. I believe it was just a report by whoever it was, detectives or whoever. But we were -- I think we were being offered to share our thoughts about the information being relayed.")
- He recalls that he understood the purpose of the meeting as follows:
"My impression was is that the sheriff wanted to know from the lawyers in the room what we thought about the information that was being provided by MCSO personnel about this confidential informant." (Id. at 5 (Depo at 247).)
- He recalls that, during this meeting, he learned that
“the confidential informant was offering information or making a claim or allegation that there was a conspiracy between Judge Snow, the Attorney General of the United States, or the Department of Justice generally and the law firm of Covington & Burling that would affect the sheriff.” (Id. at 16 (Depo at 258) (quotation was a question to which Casey responded, "yes").
* * *
"I heard that there was representations that there was a duplication of some sort of NSA/CIA data dump that this person had access to, and that's where supposedly he got this information. That's my memory." (Id. at 38 (Depo at 280).
* * *
"I do remember there was something about the effect of phone calls between -- you know, it wasn't Stan Young. It wasn't any of the lawyers that I had met, but, like, people out of your DC office supposedly talking with Eric Holder or Lanny Breuer. There was something about a clerk that either worked for or used to work for Judge Snow supposedly communicating with somebody. And I don't remember the details, but that's -- that's what I remember." (Id.).
* * *
"I was left with the impression that somehow, somewhere there was some data that connected phone calls between people that supposedly did this. I'm looking at your Exhibit 2524 at Exhibit F, this -- this chart, this flowchart that emanates from the DOJ. That somehow there was -- there was some telephonic connection, but we didn't see that. But we -- that's what was represented as supposedly -- supposedly potentially available." (Id. at 38 (Depo at 281).)
- He believes that the flowchart documents were discussed at the meeting. Id. at 9 (Depo at 247).
- He recalls that "I, like the other lawyers in the room, including some that are here today, offered our assessments of what we heard. Whether it's legal advice, I don't know to this day. I'm a lawyer. I don't remember being asked for any issue about admissibility or anything. I just remember that we all talked about what we thought about what we heard." Id. at 10 (Depo at 252).
- He does not believe anyone asked during this meeting whether any actions taken during that investigation were lawful or not. Id. at 10-11 (Depo at 252-53).
- When asked for more details about the meeting, Casey responded:
"I will tell you in all sincerity that the details are not clear. The conclusion is abundantly clear.
* * *
Hogwash.
* * *
That was my conclusion. And if I'm not mistaken, every lawyer in the room reached that conclusion." (Id. at 18 (Depo at 260).)
- When asked whether any nonlawyers expressed an opinion about the information, Casey responded that Arpaio did - but he did not provide details re: Arpaio's comments, as several defense attorneys asserted attorney-client communications privilege, which was sustained. Id. at 20 (Depo at 262). He also was instructed not to answer a question regarding whether after the meeting he shared any concerns with any nonlawyers: "I'm unable then to answer the question, because my communications were to my client." Id. at 42 (Depo at 284).
Note. On Sept. 18, 2015 the Court ruled that there was a subject matter waiver re: this meeting and, therefore, Casey is expected to testify about Arpaio's comments in the near future.
- When asked what he did after the meeting, Casey testified as follows:
I remember lawyers talking amongst ourselves. I can remember talking to, you know -- I thought Jack MacIntyre was there. I thought Jerry Sheridan was there, but my memory is not perfect. This thing was -- this thing was so ridiculous on its face in everything that I heard, and I remember sharing with whoever I talked to that the timeline, I could hire my son, that that information was publicly available -- I believe was publicly available information, and it had some sex appeal because supposedly someone was monitoring Jones, Skelton & Hochuli's -- I think Joe's telephone line.
But it -- it had nothing to it. It was -- it was out -- it was whacked is the best way I could describe it to you to use kids' terms. It was -- but that's what I remember sharing." (Id. at 36 (Depo at 278).
* * *
"I remember the lawyers talking, and I remember talking to my co-counsel. And it was a dead issue in my book. It was worthless. It was vindictive, and we would have no part of it.Q. When you say "we," who do you mean?
A. I said for the defense team, but I was talking about myself and my law firm. And my memory is, is that I was joined in that by my co-counsel. There were going to be no use of this in any circumstances under any way. Whatever it is, we want nothing to do with it." (Id. at 42 (Depo at 284).)
Following the group meeting with MCSO counsel, Anglin and Bailey meet with Chief Deputy Sheridan to discuss Montgomery and the Seattle Operation.
★ ANGLIN'S TESTIMONY:
According to Anglin's later testimony:
A. After the meeting, I had already collected open source information about Dennis Montgomery, that being the Playboy article, the New York Times article, and a Wikipedia page on Montgomery, and I provided that to the chief deputy.
Q. Can you tell me about how that occurred.
A. Captain Bailey and I met with the chief deputy, and I also -- I don't remember if I showed them the screen shots of the text messages that I had, but I referenced them and the fact that they mentioned Judge Snow, and that the matrix referenced Judge Snow, and so I asked the chief deputy if he was asking me to investigate a federal judge.
Q. What did he respond?
A. I believe the chief deputy's quote was: "On no uncertain terms are you to investigate Judge Snow or the birth certificate."
Q. He didn't tell you to stop Mr. Montgomery from investigating Judge Snow, did he?
A. No, ma'am.
Q. Where was the meeting with Chief Deputy Sheridan and Mr. -- or and Captain Bailey? [2846]
A. I believe it was in his office in our headquarters.
Q. Whose office?
A. Chief deputy's office.
* * *
Q. Did you say anything else to Chief Deputy Sheridan at that meeting?
A. I believe in that meeting I articulated my concern about doing business, for lack of better words, with somebody who had credibility issues like Dennis Montgomery, based on what I had read, Wikipedia and the Playboy article.
Q. What was Chief Deputy Sheridan's response to that comment?
A. I believe it was around that time, if not that meeting it was around that time that I was instructed to go to Washington and meet Montgomery, and try to get a better assessment of the whole picture.
Q. When you had this discussion with Chief Deputy Sheridan in his office, Captain Bailey was present, correct?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. Did Captain Bailey say anything?
A. I know Captain Bailey shared my concerns about Montgomery's credibility, and I know he was vocal about that, but I don't remember if it was specifically in that meeting or not.
Anglin Oct. 9 testimony at 2845-2846.
See also Melendres ECF 1365-1 at 18-19 (Anglin Sept. 9, 2015 Deposition at 92-93) (Anglin: ... "I asked him very specifically -- because I had gotten text messages that had the name Judge Snow in it, and now there was this matrix and these spreadsheets that say things like Judge Snow. And obviously I knew who Holder was. Any of the other law firms or the people mentioned, I didn't know who they were. So I asked the chief deputy specifically, are you asking me to investigate a federal judge? And he said in no uncertain terms am I to investigate a federal judge or anything to do with the birth certificate. I was just investigating the allegations of the illegal harvesting."); id (Anglin: "I provided the chief deputy with -- I don't know what I gave him, but I at least showed him the matrix, and I also provided him the "Playboy" article and the "New York Times" article and the Wikipedia page of Dennis Montgomery. And that was my concern is if the idea of investigating a federal judge wasn't concerning enough to me, doing it based on somebody who the media titles the man who duped the government for millions of dollars just made it even more ludicrous. So I know I provided all that information to him.")
SHERIDAN'S TESTIMONY:
<under construction>
Between January and May 2014
Anglin, Mackiewiz, and Zullo are assigned to the Seattle Operation and travel to Seattle multiple times during this assignment.
★ ANGLIN'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE SEATTLE OPERATION
ANGLIN'S TESTIMONY
Per Anglin's Oct. 9, 2015 testimony ....
Travel to Washington. Anglin travels to Washington to meet Montgomery for the first time on Jan. 10, 2014. See Anglin Oct. 9, 2015 testimony at 2848. Hereafter, he goes to Washington "roughly two or three times a month" until mid-May, when he is taken off the operation. Id. at 2851. Sometimes, he's there for a week; sometimes for 2-3 days. Id.
Providing Arpaio with Operation Updates. According to Anglin's later testimony, he meets with Arpaio "a lot of times" while working on the operation. See Anglin's Oct. 9, 2015 testimony at 2850. Sometimes Anglin meets with Arpaio before he leaves for Washington and he meets with Arpaio "just about every time" he returns. Id. at 2851. These meetings occur in Arpaio's office. Id. Generally they last at least 30 minutes and "the longest might be an hour or more." id. at 2852. Sometimes Zullo is at these meetings and sometimes Sheridan attends. Id. at 2854. See also id. at 2855 (testifying that he's also had a lot of phone conversations with Arpaio but it's hard to differentiate/recall which ones occurred in Seattle and which occurred in Phoenix).
When asked during the Oct. 2015 contempt proceedings whether these meetings have been held at Arpaio's request, Anglin responds as follows:
A. It was my understanding that in order to be involved in this investigation, that the sheriff would need to be kept in the loop. So I don't know whether the sheriff specifically told me to meet him, but it was just my understanding that was the appropriate thing to do.
Q. Did he tell you he wanted to be aware of what was going on?
A. I can't say, honestly, that the sheriff specifically told me that.
Q. Whether he used those specific words, did he, in substance, tell you, or convey to you, that he wanted to remain aware of what was going on with the Seattle investigation?
A. I can tell you that if I didn't meet with the sheriff in a timely manner, he would call or the chief deputy would call and ask me, update. So it made more sense for me to get out in front of it and just brief the sheriff ahead of time.
Id. at 2852. When asked during the Oct. 2015 contempt proceedings "what did you tell you tell Sheriff Arpaio in these meetings," Anglin responds:
A. Generally, what I would do is I would return with whatever Montgomery had produced during that trip, if he'd actually produced something, and try to explain to the sheriff what it meant, at least according to Montgomery. Or I would share with the sheriff what Montgomery hadn't produced that he said he was going to, and give the sheriff whatever excuse it was that Montgomery gave us during that time period.
Q. Did you ever share with Sheriff Arpaio examples of documents that Montgomery had provided to you?
A. I did.
Q. What types of documents were those?
A. They could be phone logs, again spreadsheets showing a series of calls, phone numbers that originated the calls, phone numbers that received the calls, the length of time, the date and the time that those calls were made.*
I also provided documents that Montgomery provided to us, that being lists of names of individuals with their addresses, as well as businesses with their addresses.
Q. And how did the sheriff respond during those meetings?
A. I don't think the sheriff fully understood the computer portion of this. So when we would explain what was taking so long, or what he needed, I don't think the sheriff fully understood all the computer parts of it, and he would often be [2854] impatient and wanting to know why Montgomery hadn't produced more. So that was a regular topic of discussion.
Id. at 2852-54. When asked during the Oct. 2015 contempt proceedings whether Arpaio ever asked about Judge Snow' during these briefings, Anglin responds as follows:
Q. Did the sheriff ever ask you about Judge Snow during any of your briefings with him?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. When was that?
A. It would have been on some of my briefings upon my return from Washington.
Q. And what did he ask you?
A. He would ask if any of the information that Montgomery had produced referenced Judge Snow.
Q. What did you tell him?
A. It never did.
Q. About how many times did he ask you whether the information produced referenced Judge Snow?
A. Probably only two or three times, because I would generally shut those conversations down and explain to him that we weren't looking into Judge Snow, so that's not the information we were seeking; subsequently, that's not the information we were getting.
Id. at 2854.
Arpaio's Emphasis on the Operation. When asked during the October 2015 hearings whether Arpaio ever made it clear to Anglin that the Seattle Operation was more important than Anglin's MCSO responsibilities, Anglin responded as follows:
Q. Did Sheriff Arpaio make it clear to you that the Seattle investigation was more important than your other responsibilities at MCSO?
A. He did.
Q. How did he do that? [2856]
A. I came into his office one day and he asked what I was doing there. I explained I was there to brief him, and he said: No, what are you doing in Arizona? I explained to him I still had a unit to run, and he said: This is more important than your unit.
Id. at 2855-56.
Judge Snow. Anglin never investigated whether Judge Snow was a victim of the alleged harvesting of identity or bank account information. See Anglin's Oct. 9, 2015 testimony at 2847. He has no knowledge that Zullo or Mackiewicz investigated this matter. Id. at 2847-48. He never saw any information indicating that Snow was identified as a victim. Id. Anglin testified that:,
"Montgomery claims that Judge Snow's name came into play as a result of the harvested information, which one might argue that is a victim if that was in fact done. I don't ever recall hearing Judge Snow -- Judge Snow's name referenced in terms of the bank account or e-mail or phone records that he also claims the CIA harvested."
Id. at 2847 (emphasis added). On cross-examination,
Q. During any of the conversations that you had with MCSO personnel regarding the Seattle investigation, were you ever ordered to investigate Judge Snow?
A. No.
Id. at 2884.
Bailey's Concerns about the Operation. Asked during the October hearings about when Captain Bailey had been "vocal about his concerns," Anglin responds: "Captain Bailey was vocal about his concerns the entire time I was involved in the case," and that Bailey shared those concerns with Sheridan. See Anglin Oct. 9, 2015 testimony at 2847.
The Seattle Operation and the Birther Investigation: On cross-examination, Anglin testified as follows:
Q. Were there times during your -- the time period that you were involved in the investigation that we're referring to, were there times that Dennis Montgomery attempted to entice MCSO investigators with information unrelated to the focus of this investigation?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what would he try to provide you with?
A. Information about the President's birth certificate. [2881]
Q. What would you do with that information?
A. I wouldn't do anything with it. Any time that topic came up, myself and I would order Detective Mackiewicz to leave the room.
Anglin's Oct. 9, 2015 testimony at 2880. The Court later followed up on this last issue:
Q. You indicated that at points, Mr. Montgomery would try to entice you by holding out a birth certificate investigation possibility?
A. To be clear, Your Honor, he would try to entice Mr. Zullo, 'cause he was the only one interested in that case. He claimed to have software to show that the birth certificate was, in fact, a fraud.
Q. And you indicated, I believe, in testimony, that when that happened, you would direct Detective Mackiewicz to leave the room?
A. And myself. We would both leave.
Q. But Mr. Zullo would remain in the room?
A. He would.
Q. And so you don't know what happened? [2888]
A. I do not.
Q. How often would that happen?
A. I think it happened two or three times.
Id. at 2887-2888.
Anglin's Understanding of the Seattle Operation. According to Anglin's Oct. 9, 2015 testimony, the purpose of the Seattle Operation was to investigate the allegations re: CIA harvesting of US citizen information:
"Q. Now, you worked with Detective Mackiewicz and Mr. Zullo on this investigation?A. I did.
Q. What was the focus of the Seattle investigation?
A. To determine whether or not the CIA had illegally harvested information from the American public, and whether or not Dennis Montgomery was in possession of that information.
Q. Okay. And explain to me what you mean by illegally harvesting information.
A. Information was collected about phone records, e-mails, and bank account information -- allegedly -- by the CIA, with software designed by Dennis Montgomery. Dennis Montgomery allegedly captured some of that information on hard drives, and subsequently stole those hard drives from the CIA."
* * *
Q. But the focus of the Seattle investigation was about the CIA harvesting financial and personal records of United States citizens, correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And specifically were those citizens in the state of Arizona?
A. Some of them were.
Q. Okay. Any in Maricopa County?
A. Yes, sir.
Anglin's Oct. 9, 2015 testimony at 2880-2881, 2883. Additionally ...
Q. Now, did you ever speak with Chief Deputy Sheridan regarding what the scope of the Seattle investigation was?
A. I did.
Q. And this was after this January 2nd meeting?
Okay. When you spoke to Chief Deputy Sheridan about this investigation, did you inquire at that time, after the meeting, what it was that you were to be investigating in Seattle?
A. I did.
Q. Okay. And what did he say to you?
A. As I testified to earlier, the first specific question I asked is: Are you asking me to investigate a federal judge?
Q. And what did he say?
A. And I believe his quote was: On no uncertain terms are you [2886] to investigate Judge Snow or the birth certificate.
Q. And you took that as an order from the chief deputy?
A. I did.
Q. And why?
A. He's my chief deputy and it's pretty clear direction.
Q. Did this order include Detective Mackiewicz?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did it include other investigators on that investigation in Seattle?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When you were in Seattle, any time during your participation in this investigation did you witness anyone doing anything that would indicate that an investigation of Judge Snow was occurring?
A. I did not.
Q. How about -- well, any time that you were in Seattle did you witness anybody involved in this investigation doing anything that would indicate an investigation was occurring regarding the Department of Justice?
A. No, sir.
Q. Or Eric Holder.
A. No.
Q. Or Covington & Burling
A. No, sir.
Q. Or anybody that you could think of. [2887]
A. No.
Id. at 2885-87.
SHERIDAN'S TESTIMONY RE: ANGLIN'S INVOLVEMENT:
<details under construction>
ARPAIO'S TESTIMONY re: ANGLIN'S INVOLVEMENT:
According to Arpaio, he "may have" talked to Anglin during this period. Arpaio's Oct. 2, 2015 testimony at 2372. "However, I think my main discussions were with Mr. Zullo and Brian Mackiewicz since they had a -- sort of a history of this." Id.
When asked whether he had told Anglin that instead of being in Phoenix, he should be in Seattle, Arpaio responded, "I don't remember telling him where he should be." Id. at 2373.
When asked whether it's possible he told Anglin that the Seattle Operation was more important than "the unit that Sergeant Anglin was running in Phoenix," Arpaio responded: "I don't know if I said that. And the chief deputy was really running the nuts and bolts of this investigation with Anglin, but if I had a conversation with him, maybe I would have said it. It was an important investigation." Id.
*Note: While the timing of this is unknown, during cross-examination, Anglin testified as follows regarding these logs, spreadsheets, etc.:
Q. Now, you testified that sometimes Mr. Montgomery would provide phone logs and spreadsheets with phone numbers on them and lengths of calls.
Do you remember that?
A. I do. [2878]
Q. When he would provide this information to you as an investigator, did you follow up on any of it?
A. We did.
Q. You did? And what did you do?
A. It was mainly Detective Mackiewicz, but we would call some of the numbers, ask for the person whose name might be listed, and see if that number did in fact belong to them. If it was information about a business, we might look it up in open source formats to determine if that business really existed.
Q. And was that just done in the normal course of your investigative duties?
A. Yes.
Anglin Oct. 9, 2015 testimony at 2877-78.
See also Stephen Lemons, “Joe Arpaio's Investigating Federal Judge G. Murray Snow, DOJ, Sources Say, and Using a Seattle Scammer To Do It,” Phoenix New Times, June 4, 2014 (reporting, in June 2014, that MCSO detectives Brian Mackiewicz and Travis Anglin reportedly spend “a lot” of time in Seattle Washington with confidential informant Dennis Montgomery, working on a "criminal investigation" during the first half of 2014).
Jan. 3 (23?), 2014
★ Seattle Operation Exhibit: A document – labeled in Transcript as "Email chain between Mike Zullo and Travis Anglin dated 1/23/2014 (MELC199420-21)" but dated Jan. 3 per testimony in same transcript – is admitted into evidence in the 2015 Melendres contempt hearings as Exhibit 2097. See Oct. 9, 2015 Transcript (ECF 1466) at 2833; see also see also Anglin's Oct. 9, 2015 testimony at 2832 (testifying that he received this email on Jan. 3, 2014, but not providing any further details regarding contents of email).
Sometime After Jan. 2, 2014
Apparently MCSO's Steve Bailey has, for a period, approved payments to Dennis Montgomery and approved travel expenses for MCSO employee. See Melendres ECF 1365-2 at 4 (Bailey Depo at 337). However, at some point he refused to do so, per his deposition testimony:
Q. After you expressed your concerns that Dennis Montgomery was not reliable, did the investigation continue?
A. Yes.
Q. After you -- at the point that you had the conversation with Chief Deputy Sheridan saying that you could not in good conscience approve payments to Dennis Montgomery, did payments to him continue?
A. I believe so.
Q. Did you continue to sign those approvals?
A. I did not.
* * *
Q. Okay. Did you continue to sign those travel expense approvals after reaching that conclusion?
A. I don't believe I did.
Q. Do you know what -- who started to approve them after -- well, first let me ask you. Did the travel continue after you declined to sign those approvals?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know who did do those approvals?
A. I don't.
Q. Do you recall
Id. at 4-5 (Bailey Deposition at 343-44).
Jan. 8, 2014
Zullo is already seeking, for Montgomery, an extension of the deadlines imposed by the December 2013 Free Talk Agreement with the Attorney AG's office. See Exhibit 2095 and details, below.
★ Seattle Operation Exhibit: A document – E-mail chain between Mike Zullo and Dennis Montgomery with a subject line "Phone" dated 1/8/2014 (MELC199626-28) – is admitted into evidence in the 2015 Melendres contempt hearings as Exhibit 2095. See Oct. 9, 2015 Transcript (ECF 1466) at 2859. While the document has not yet been made public, information revealed to date in the contempt proceedings indicates that:
- The email chain includes (on the second page) an email from Zullo to Montgomery on Jan. 8th at 2:26 PM. See Anglin Oct. 9 testimony at 2860.
- The first line of this Zullo 2:26 PM email refers to "BC" - i.e., the birther investigation. Id.
- This email also indicates that Zullo is "already facilitating obtaining an extension" of Montgomery's Free Talk Agreement deadlines. Id.
Anglin later testifies that, at this time, he was unaware that Zullo is already attempting to get Montgomery an extension. Id. at 2860.
★ Seattle Operation Exhibit: A document – E-mail from Mike Zullo to Brian McDaniel copying Travis Anglin, forwarding E-mail from Mike Zullo to Dennis Montgomery with a subject line "Rand Paul" dated 1/8/2014 (MELC199540-43) – is admitted into evidence in the 2015 Melendres contempt hearings as Exhibit 2087. See Oct. 9, 2015 Transcript (Anglin Testimony) at 2833. While this exhibit has not yet been made available to the public, the following information has been disclosed through testimony:
- On the second page, there is an email from Zullo to Montgomery, which references Montgomery's medical condition/health problems. See Arpaio's Oct. 2, 2015 testimony at 2366-2367.
- This email indicates that Arpaio has "conveyed [his] best wishes" to Montgomery. Id. at 2367.
- Another email, which starts on the bottom of page 1 and goes to top of page 2 and is date-stamped 7:25 p.m., contains "a reference to some cash." Id.
- This email references "BC" - i.e., the birth certificate investigation. Id. at 2368.
-
This email also references "the attorneys' e-mails." Plaintiffs' counsel asked Arpaio whether this ("the attorneys' emails") is a "reference to the e-mails that were described in [Exhibit 2072] and the daughter's soccer game, and the issues relating to your law firm's e-mail account being hacked." His response: "I believe -- I believe so." Id. at 2368.
- In discussing this email, Plaintiffs' counsel asked Arpaio "Was it your understanding that the deal with Mr. Montgomery is that he would work on those matters and then your office would give him cash in hand?" His response: "I don't know ..." Id. at 2369.
- One of the emails contained in this exhibit is from David Webb (i.e., Montgomery). The exhibit includes Anglin's handwriting on this email. See Anglin's Oct. 9, 2015 testimony at 2834.
📄 ZULLO DOC. Zullo emails Travis Anglin at 16:43 re: "FW: Phone." (Zullo 003725-27.) This 3-page document is reflected in the "Fifth Amendment Privilege Log, which is later docketed in the Melendres 2015 proceedings as ECF 1507-6, filed in support of Plaintiffs’ Oct. 30, 2015 Opposition to Zullo's Oct. 26 Motion for Extension of Time (to find an attorney).
Note. While this document contains the same number of pages as the "Phone" email admitted as Exhibit 2087 about, the addressees are different, at least based on the descriptions contained in the potential exhibit list and the Zullo Fifth Amendment Privilege Log.
★ Seattle Operation Exhibit: A document – E-mail from Mike Zullo to Travis Anglin, with the subject line "Rand Paul" dated 1/8/2014 (MELC199377-80) – is admitted into evidence in the 2015 Melendres contempt hearings as Exhibit 2096. See Oct. 9, 2015 Transcript at 2861; see also Anglin's Oct. 9, 2015 testimony at 2860. While this document is not yet public, information revealed to date in the hearings includes:
- The email says, at the top: "Sgt. I knew it was all BS. He is back in play. Working me for money." Id. at 2861.
According to Anglin, he believes that, at this time, "Montgomery was explaining that he couldn't pay his Internet bill, and he would need the Internet in order to facilitate the requests by the Sheriff's Office, and so he needed more money in order to pay that bill." Id.
Jan. 9, 2014
★ Brian Mackiewicz emails copies of the Jan. 1, 2015 Montgomery timeline and chart (rev 1.5a) to Jenise Moreno (Sheridan's assistant), "Re: Confidential" and with the following instructions:
"Can you please print these in color. Please make sure NO ONE else sees the information contained in them. Thanks."
See Exhibit 2904, admitted into evidence in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings; see also Mackiewicz Oct. 28 testimony at 3729-3730.
“Carl Gallups [tells] his audience this morning that the details of [the Arpaio-Zullo Cold Case Posse] investigation are scheduled to be revealed in March. The investigation team is working diligently on the final verification of all the information they have. They do not want to bring anything forward which is not 100 percent verified.” See Mike Shoesmith, “'UNIVERSE SHATTERING!' Arpaio Team to Release Investigation Info in March!,” PPSimmons, Jan. 9, 2014.
Jan. 10, 2014
★ Anglin, Mackiewicz and Zullo fly to Seattle to meet with Montgomery. See Anglin's Oct. 9, 2015 testimony at 2848.
See also ECF 1365-1 at 20 (Anglin Sept. 9, 2015 Depo at 127 (testifying that Zullo and Mackiewicz stay in Seattle and "and "I don't think that [Mackiewicz] returned more than twice from then until May when I came home with him" -- and that this was ordered by Arpaio: Q And that was authorized by whom? A. That was ordered by Sheriff Arpaio. Q. Ordered by Sheriff Arpaio? A. Yes." Id.)
Jan. 11, 2014
★ Anglin meets Montgomery for the first time, in Seattle. Per Anglin's later testimony:
"It was early on the 11th when we actually made contact with Mr. Montgomery. Contacted him at his house, took him for breakfast, and there he again told me the same story that I heard several times at this point about his background and how he became affiliated with the CIA and how he became in possession of this material.
He explained to me the process in which it was going to take to extrapolate this data from the drives that he had. He explained to me that it could potentially take what he referred to as a supercomputer to decrypt these drives and to decode these drives, and he went on to tell me that [2849] potentially, that computer could cost as much as a hundred thousand dollars.
And we discussed briefly the fact that he had been receiving payments as a confidential informant, and that he would need -- he required to continue to be paid as a confidential informant in order to produce the information that he claimed to have."
Anglin Oct. 9, 2015 testimonyat 2848-2849. Per Anglin, he called Sheridan from the airport on the 11th as he was returning home to share this information. Id.
"Q. Did you tell Chief Deputy Sheridan that you weren't comfortable going into business with Mr. Montgomery?
A. I told him that I still had concerns about Montgomery's credibility, but in a single day there I wasn't in a position to say whether the information he had was viable or not.
Q. Did you tell him about the estimated $100,000 cost of the computer equipment?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. What was Chief Deputy Sheridan's response?
A. He said we would have to run it by the sheriff, but be prepared to continue on with the case, 'cause he's probably [2850] going to want to do it.
Q. Because the sheriff would probably want to do it?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. Did you characterize the investigation with Dennis Montgomery as going down the rabbit hole to Chief Deputy Sheridan?
A. I probably did. That's a term I use.
Q. What did you mean by that?
A. Well, I mean that to be an impartial investigator, I can't spend a morning or an afternoon with somebody and come back and say: This is truthful or this is not. We would have to go down the rabbit hole. We would have to get deeper into the investigation to determine whether this was a viable option or not.
Q. So when you came back from this first trip to Seattle, did you also brief Sheriff Arpaio?
A. I believe I did.
Q. And what did -- what did you tell the sheriff?
A. I had a lot of meetings with the sheriff, but in that time frame I would have told him the same thing that I told the chief deputy, because I didn't have any other information to share at that point.
Q. And what was the sheriff's response?
A. I'm afraid I don't remember his response from that particular meeting. [2851]
Q. Did he take you off -- or did he tell you: "We're not interested. We're not going to investigate this"?
A. No. I was told that the investigation would continue and I would be returning back to Washington.
Id. at 2849-2851.
★ MCSO CI Payment to Montgomery. MCSO makes a $2,500 cash payment to Montgomery, per Exhibit 2085 later admitted in the 2015 Melendres Contempt proceedings.
Jan. 16, 2014
📄 Seattle Operation Document: A document -- Memorandum from Detective Brian Mackiewicz to Travis Anglin re Investigative Trip to Seattle WA (part of a 21-page “collection of memos” - (MELC198474-94)) is – is later listed as pat of potential Exhibit 2092 in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings. See Plaintiffs’ Oct. 12, 2015 List of Exhibits, ECF 1462-2.
📄 Seattle Operation Document: A document -- Memorandum from Travis Anglin to Captain Steven Bailey re Investigative Trip to Seattle, WA scheduled for 1/23-1/26/14 (part of a 21-page “collection of memos” - (MELC198474-94)) is later listed as part of potential Exhibit 2092 in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings. See Plaintiffs’ Oct. 12, 2015 List of Exhibits, ECF 1462-2.
Jan. 17, 2014
Judge Snow issues order appointing Robert Warshaw of Warshaw and Associates, Inc.,as Court Monitor. [ECF 649.] See also Jude Joffe-Block, “Judge Selects Monitor To Oversee MCSO,” KJZZ, Jan. 17, 2014; Stephen Lemons, “Joe Arpaio's Monitor in Melendres Appointed by Judge G. Murray Snow, Jan. 17, 2014; and Matthew Hendley, “Joe Arpaio Says He's "Not Concerned" About Monitor,” Phoenix New Times, Jan. 17, 2014 ("'I'm not concerned about a monitor,' Arpaio said this afternoon. 'I've been monitored by the White House, Justice Department, the ACLU, the media, and my wife.'").
Jan. 21, 2014
📄 Seattle Operation Document: A document – Memorandum from Brian Mackiewicz to Travis Anglin re Confidential Information Payment, dated 1/21/2014 (part of a 21-page “collection of memos”)) – is later listed as potential Exhibit 2092 in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings. See Plaintiffs’ Oct. 12, 2015 List of Exhibits, ECF 1462-2. The contents of this document have not yet been made public, but it seems reasonable to speculate that this relates to Montgomery and the Seattle Operation.
★ Anglin drafts a memo, dated today, to Brian Stutsman re Investigative purchases (MELC187111), according to Exhibit 2530, later admitted into evidence in the 2015 Melendres contempt hearings. See Sept. 25, 2015 Transcript (ECF 1465) at 1323; see also see also Sheridan's Sept. 25, 2015 testimony regarding this document.
This memo reflects Anglin's request to purchase "several potentially high-value pieces of computer hardware as well as online software" - which he noted could cost more than $50,000. Id.
Jan. 24, 2014
MCSO/Arpaio file their Opposition to the Melendres Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees and Related non-taxable costs. [ECF 652.]
📄 Seattle Operation Document: A document – Memorandum from Brian Mackiewicz to Travis Anglin re Confidential Information Payment, Dated 1/24/2014 (part of a 21-page “collection of memos”)) – is later listed as part of potential Exhibit 2092 in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings. See Plaintiffs’ Oct. 12, 2015 List of Exhibits, ECF 1462-2.
★ MCSO CI Payment to Montgomery. MCSO makes a $5,000 cash payment to Montgomery, per Exhibit 2085 later admitted in the 2015 Melendres Contempt proceedings.
Jan. 25, 2015
★ MCSO CI Payment to Montgomery. MCSO makes a $500 cash payment to Montgomery, per Exhibit 2085 later admitted in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings.
Jan. 28, 2014
★ Seattle Operation Exhibit: A document – MCSO Memorandum from Sergeant Anglin to Lt Seagraves re Investigative lodging, signed off by Chief Sheridan, dated 1/28/2014 (MELC233669) – is admitted into evidence in the 2015 Melendres contempt hearings as Exhibit 2012. See Oct. 1, 2015 Transcript (ECF 1455) at 2151; see also see also Seagraves' Oct. 1, 2015 testimony at 2150 for additional information on this.
Jan. 29, 2014
★ MCSO CI Payment to Montgomery. MCSO makes a $4,500 cash payment to Montgomery, per Exhibit 2085 later admitted in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings.
Jan. 31, 2014
The Melendres Plaintiffs file Satisfaction of Judgment for Taxable Costs (which were awarded Nov. 5, 2013) - i.e., notice that the judgment has been paid. ECF 654.
During his Freedom Friday radio show, Carl Gallups provided an update on the Arpaio-Zullo Cold Case Posse birther investigation. See PPSimmons, Zullo/Arpaio Info Release Update! IT'S STILL ON!, YouTube, Feb. 2, 3014. (layperson’s unofficial transcript):
GALLUPS: Also, I want to give you a quick update. I have heard from Lieutenant [sic] Mike Zullo, of the Sheriff Arpaio-Mike Zullo, uh, Cold Case Posse and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office investigation of the Obama fraud case. And of Course I've been keeping you updated on this for years, but for our newer listeners, Mike Zullo and I talk almost every day and he keeps me apprised and updated on the guts of what's going on - the guts of the case, and he has characterized the case as "universe-shattering." ... That's the word he [Zullo] is using; that's the word that Arpaio is using - "universe-shattering" information. And so, I was just talking with him yesterday and the information continues to get deeper and deeper ... the evidence continues to mount; documented evidence as well as other evidence that's extremely ... what's the word? I'm not at liberty ... to tell you what all they have, ok? In fact, I can't even hint, but I'm just telling you that he confirmed yesterday that they're still shooting for a March news conference release date of all of this information. Universe-shattering. ...
[~2:35] ...[W]hat's gonna come forward doesn't really - the birth certificate is going to be a part of it, I imagine, I mean, because that's huge, that is huge - but this is not a birth certificate issue now. I mean, it's gone way -- it's because of their investigation into the birth certificate, that they were able to take, turn some corners after they developed some leads -- and, they turned some deep deep corners ... and some of it was because of the Obamabot input; some of it you heard right here on this show. And once those investigations - you know - people started ... looking into deeper things and other things, and started listening to what some of the Obamabots were saying - that some clues were given. And then, once that happened, the snowball began to roll and doors began to open and evidence began to pile up and .. and that's all I can say about it.
So you're just gonna have to hang on folks. March is the date that they are shooting for ...
Early 2014- After January
At some point in early 2014 (but apparently after January*), Anglin obtains extensions to Montgomery's December 2013 Free Talk Agreement deadlines for production of the required deliverables.
*Note. It seems reasonable to assume that this event occurs after January 2014 because, in the context of discussing the above events, Plaintiffs' counsel asks Anglin whether he knew that Zullo was already seeking a deadline extension "as early as January 2014." See Anglin Oct. 2, 2015 testimony at 2860.
★ Per Anglin's later testimony, in early 2014 - when Montgomery is up against the Free Talk Agreement deadlines,
"A. I explained to the sheriff that those deadlines would not be met by Mr. Montgomery. And in an effort to maintain the immunity potentially offered to him from the state Attorney General's Office, we would need an extension from that office. [2859]
Q. And what did the sheriff say in response to that?
A. Well, I requested permission to go to the Attorney General's Office and request that extension, and I was given permission to do so.
Q. And did Mr. Montgomery ever produce results pursuant to those deliverables?
A. He didn't do it in that time frame, and he didn't do it during the time frame that I was involved in the case."
Anglin Oct. 9, 2015 testimony at 2858-2859.
Feb. 2, 2014
★ According to the "Whistleblower Chronicles" later drafted by Dennis Montgomery, he "turns over master database records containing 24 million individuals and businesses harvested by US Government to MCSO from 2003-2010." See Plaintiffs Exhibit 2919 (PDF) (admitted into evidence during the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings).
★ Seattle Operation Exhibit: A document – MCSO memo from Travis Anglin to Kim Seagraves re Investigative lodging dated 2/2/2014 (MELC187093) – is admitted into evidence in the 2015 Melendres contempt hearings as Exhibit 2528. See Sept. 25 Transcript (ECF 1465) at 1319; see also Sheridan's Sept. 25, 2015 testimony regarding this document.
This document apparently reflects Anglin's request to rent a house in the Seattle are for 44 nights to both house the MCSO employees (plus posseman Zullo) as well as hard drives they expected to receive from Montgomery. Id.
★ Seattle Operation Exhibit: A document – MCSO Memorandum from Sergeant Anglin to Lt Seagraves re Investigative lodging, signed off by Chief Sheridan dated 2/2/2014 (MELC234036) – is admitted into evidence in the 2015 Melendres contempt hearings as Exhibit 2013. See Oct. 1, 2015 Transcript (ECF 1455) at 2151; see also see also Seagraves' Oct. 1, 2015 testimony regarding this document.
Feb. 3, 2014
★ Seattle Operation Exhibit: A 1-page document – Email from Carmen Hernandez to Travis Anglin re Investigative travel dated 2/3/2014 – is later admitted into evidence in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings as Exhibit 2527. See Mackiewicz Oct. 27, 2015 testimony at [tbd].
Feb. 7, 2014
Zullo again appears on Gallups’ Freedom Friday show. See PPSimmons, Arpaio Investigation Team Traces "O-bots" Back to Obama Admin! Zullo Update, YouTube, as Feb. 7, 2014. In the first segment of his interview, Zullo summarizes the status of the investigations as follows (layperson’s unofficial transcript):
[~1:42]ZULLO: … As an outgrowth – during an investigation, and you know this from your law enforcement background – you get other information. And other information surfaced as a result of this birth certificate investigation, that has now prompted Sheriff Arpaio to open up a second investigation. And this is a criminal investigation into other matters that I am not at privileged to discuss openly yet, but I can tell you that when the Sheriff’s Office is finished, that they will be compelling, they will be mind blowing and they will be disconcerting.
* *<discussion of anticipated March conference date> * *
[~3:13] ZULLO: ... I don’t know how this is all going to play out. I know that the criminal investigation that we’re working on now, Sheriff Arpaio has dedicated resources in two full-time Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office detectives, and these are seasoned pros that are working this. These are the guys that go hunt down the really bad guys. You don’t want these guys trying to find you because they will find you. … And I can only tell you that it’s fluid, it’s evolving, and it’s very intense.
* *<discussion of possible two different “events” to deal with two different investigations>* *
[~4:04] ZULLO: Even though they [the two investigations] are simultaneously running, the Sheriff’s office resources that have been dedicated now are to the criminal investigation on matters I can’t disclose to you.
* *<more discussion of possible two different “events” to deal with two different investigations > * *
[~5:10] ZULLO: … My work with the birth certificate still goes on and that is totally being absorbed by the Posse organization. And I am here assisting on the criminal investigation with Maricopa County detectives. That’s the way it’s going to be. Sheriff Arpaio felt that this was the best way to utilize resources, and asked me if I would assist going forward … But even though they’re separate [i.e., the two investigations], they’re running in tandem.
In the second segment, Zullo states that they’ve identified several obots, including one that’s potentially involved somehow with DARPA and Obot(s) with IP addresses traced to the Obama Administration (layperson’s unofficial transcript):
[13:45] GALLUPS: … Obots. We know that there are operatives out there, Obama-loving operatives, and it’s ok to love Obama – that’s fine – but these people have interjected themselves all throughout this investigation in various ways, some to the point of actually, I think, interfering with the investigation, but they’ve interjected themselves on radio and internet and blogtalk radio and on my radio program and all over the blogs and websites – but, isn’t it correct, it is my understanding that you know who some or most of these guys are, or most important ones, I mean – have you done some digging, you know who these guys are?
[14:26] ZULLO: We have a pretty good idea who some of the ones who are anonymous are. … One in particular we know works in the field of artificial intelligence in projects that are funded by DARPA, so that tells you a lot right there. We have placed IP addresses going back directly to the Administration. We’re counting on those as very suspicious as to when logins happen and when things are posted.
[14:55] GALLUPS: Wow….Tell folks who DARPA is.
[14:58] ZULLO: DARPA is a DOD agency where they are working on – for lack of a better word, they do a lot of robotics things that you hear about, you know, killer robots, and things along those lines. They also do some psychological warfare stuff, … and you know … you look at some of the things that these people are doing and what they are doing – that part of this equation, that Obot part – it’s all psychological games. And everything they do is to draw you in and get you into their minutiae. …
[16:20] GALLUPS: They [Obots] are nothing but … disinformation agents.
Zullo and Gallups then state yet again that the second, criminal investigation came about as a direct result of the Obots' Xerox explanation (layperson’s unofficial transcript):
[16:26] ZULLO: Well, I’ll tell you, the one thing I will commend them [Obots] for. Throwing up the nonsense Xerox machine argument is what got us where we are today. …
[16:35] GALLUPS: Well, yes it did. And that’s all we’re gonna say about that. But I’m glad they did it, and you’re glad they did it and Sheriff Arpaio’s glad they did it, because that’s where everything started branching off into some deep, deep deep stuff.
See also PPSimmons, GETTING CLOSE! Mike Zullo and the latest on Obama's Fraudulent Birth, YouTube, Feb. 7, 2014, and PPSimmons, Zullo and Team Trace "O-Bots" Back to OBAMA ADMIN! DOD Involved!, YouTube, Feb. 7, 2014, for same audio of show in two segments. See also Sharon Rondeau, “Zullo: Some Obots Working for Obama Regime – ‘I'VE GOT THE PROOF’," Post & Email, as reposted on PPSimmons with permission, Feb. 8, 2014.
Feb. 8, 2015
★ MCSO CI Payment to Montgomery. MCSO makes a $1,700 cash payment to Montgomery, per Exhibit 2085 later admitted in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings.
Feb. 10, 2014
Arizona Politics Blog queried the MCSO about Zullo’s claims that MCSO had dedicated sources to a criminal investigation related to the birth certificate investigation. See BREAKING: MCSO Confirms Sheriff Arpaio Now Has 2 FT Detectives Working On Investigation Related To President Obama Birth Certificate Investigation, Arizona Politics Blog, Feb. 10, 2014.
Arpaio spokesperson Lt. Brandon Jones initially confirmed the matter, stating “We have two Sheriff’s detectives assigned to look into other issues surrounding the birth certificate, however they are not investigating the birth certificate issue itself." Id.
However, later that day, Jones retracted his prior statement and issued a new one. Id. According to Jones’ clarification: "I was misinformed. The detectives are not working on anything regarding the birth certificate. Not even surrounding. Mr Zullo was incorrect, they are working on other sensitive cases not even related." BREAKING UPDATE: Maricopa County Sheriff's Office DENIES Detectives Are Working On Criminal Ancillary Investigation Related To Obama Birth Certificate Probe, Arizona Politics Blog, Feb. 10, 2014.
Feb. 13, 2015
★ MCSO CI Payment to Montgomery. MCSO makes a $5,000 cash payment to Montgomery, per Exhibit 2085 later admitted in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings.
Feb. 14, 2014
Melendres Plaintiffs file their Reply to Defendants' Opposition to their Motion for Attorney Fees and Related Nontaxable Costs. ECF 655.
Mike Violin posts the following on his wheresobamasbirthcertficiate.com blog:
“On Carl Gallups’ Freedom Friday radio show, Mike Zullo said they’ve traced the IP address of “RC” to DOD’s DARPA disinformation department.
The Obots have gone eerily silent ever since. Why?
Mike Zullo’s intent in revealing that information was not to silence the Obots but to tell the public that a concrete step had been made in the investigation and even more than that.
He said that a second criminal investigation surrounding Obama’s birth certificate has been started. That’s an explosive, hair-raising piece of news.
Maybe it was that, a concrete step to track the IP addresses of Obots and that had led them to the Army and DOD, which had set them fleeing for the exits.”
Feb. 17, 2014
★ Seattle Operation Exhibit: A document – "Names of People Involved" dated 2/17/2014 (MELC1287419 - MELC1287444) is later entered into evidence as Exhibit 2920 in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings. See Mackiewicz Oct. 29, 2015 Testimony at 3716-17.
This document is not yet publicly available. However, per an eyewitness at the Oct. 28 hearing, this document, which was prepared by Mackiewicz, contains names of people involved, first interview, and "free talk." "Some of the names on the list were taken from within emails. The name "Murray Snow" is on this list.
Feb. 20, 2014
★ MCSO CI Payment to Montgomery. MCSO makes a $4,000 cash payment to Montgomery, per Exhibit 2085 later admitted in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings.
Feb. 21, 2014
During his Freedom Friday radio show, Carl Gallups briefly discusses the status of the Arpaio-Zullo investigations. PPSimmons, ZULLO CONFERENCE FORTHCOMING! And More!, YouTube, Feb. 22, 2014. Excerpts (layperson’s unofficial transcript):
[00:08] GALLUPS: I want to give the folks a quick Zullo update… Well, the bottom line is, I talked to Mike Zullo just the other day and folks, I just wanna tell you, just a couple days ago … He tells me and I’m ... allowed to say this, that the … conference is forthcoming, and I’m telling you … Arpaio and Zullo are both saying this, so I’m just – I’m reporting information, ok, folks? I’m not conducting the investigation; I’m not gathering all the criminal evidence and investigative information; I’m not flying all over the country interviewing people and searching archives … But I’m helping them to get out information and to keep America kinda updated on what’s going on. And I told you several weeks ago that … Zullo represented and in fact several months ago on this show represented that … he was not going to release any more information until the conference came forth. Because every time he did, it was picked apart and dissected, plus … there was some concern about ... information leakage that should not have happened and etcetera, etcetera.
[1:20] So, the bottom line is, he is not going to give any details of where he’s at until it’s time for the conference. And the very last word I had just a few days ago was that the conference is still forthcoming. So that’s all I know and all I can say at this point. …
Feb. 25, 2014
★ MCSO CI Payment to Montgomery. MCSO makes a $5,000 cash payment to Montgomery, per Exhibit 2085 later admitted in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings.
Feb. 28, 2014
During his Freedom Friday radio show, Carl Gallups briefly discusses the status of the Arpaio-Zullo investigations. See PPSimmons, Major Media Lining Up for Big Zullo/Arpaio Reveal! Plus - Rabbi Book Reaches MUSLIMS in Middle east!, Mar. 2, 2014. (layperson’s unofficial transcript):
[11:10] GALLUPS: I talked with Mike Zullo yesterday. He assures me – now he has said this before, but he…gave me another update that’s astounding and the details of it I cannot give you over the air, but he assures me that major media, major major media is heavily involved, they are involved in this criminal case for certain, perhaps the birth certificate case as well, as it moves along, but this criminal case that will be released very soon, and so, and again, Mike Zullo has already said this but it was just good to get that reaffirmation and confirmation yesterday with some more details and more information and the names of the people that are involved in the media now, I mean, big, big, big names – this is gonna be huge. So this is not going to go unnoticed; it’s not gonna go unreported like the last couple of conferences that Sheriff Arpaio did on the birth certificate, where major media knew about it and showed up, but would not report it. Well now, … they’re coming to Arpaio and Zullo. They know what’s going on. They know some of it. They know bits and pieces of it and they’re chomping at the bits and making their promises and lining up their ducks, so this is gonna be huge.
[12:21] The other thing that I wanted to tell you is this: … We don’t have a date in March, but they’re still shooting for a late March conference and release of the criminal investigation information, which Mike Zullo says is universe-shattering information. I happen to know what they’re gonna release, so I can assure you, I would use those words as well. …
[12:43] But the one thing that Mike wants me to emphasize, and that I have been emphasizing in every interview that I have done around the nation on this is that that date of late March is still fluid. Now … don’t panic, and don’t get upset, and for you Obamabots that are listening and [saying], see there, see there, they just making promises and then they keep moving the date… Well, just hang on … You’re gonna be shocked one day very soon. The only reason I’m using, saying that the date is fluid is because now that major media is involved, they’re gonna want to time it with certain other events and they’re gonna want to do some film footage and some filming and some interviews and..
[13:24] Plus, Sheriff Arpaio – I’m telling you – the information that they have in hard copy information of this criminal activity that they have traced to the White House continues to pour in and continues to mount and so they’re still in this huge investigation process and so, I mean, listen, if I was Sheriff Arpaio and late March came around and I have all this major media that has signed on and they’re doing filming and interviewing and the information is still coming and I’m still confirming it, I’d put it off a little bit, I mean, yeah. When you come to the plate, when you come up to the plate, you wanna hit a home run. … So that’s the only reason we’re saying that it’s still fluid – although, right now, they’re still saying late March. And they believe they can make that date. But if it has to go to April, or May – heck, I don’t care if it goes to June – and by the way, Arpaio and Zullo didn’t say those dates – I’m saying them, so don’t take that and say Arpaio says June now. No, he did not say that. I’m saying that – I’m saying, knowing what I know, and knowing what’s happening and what’s involved, I’m very happy with the fact that sometime this year – and probably late March – it’s going to be released. … And remember there are two investigations: there’s the birth certificate investigation, which is huge and then, of course, there is also the criminal investigation.
Early 2014
At some point in early 2014, Anglin becomes fed up with Montgomery's failure to meet multiple deadlines.
★ According to Anglin's later testimony:
Q. Sir, you did not want to keep paying Mr. Montgomery in early 2014 after he slipped a series of deadlines, is that correct?
A. It is.
Q. Did you tell that to the sheriff?
A. I did.
Q. Did Mr. Zullo have another opinion?
A. He did.
Q. So tell me what you told the sheriff.
A. There were many meetings during this time frame, but what I explained to the sheriff was that he wasn't producing, we were spending a great deal of money, and I didn't feel that this investigation we were doing would pass the headline test and I thought we should cut our losses and be done with it.
Q. What was Mr. Zullo's opinion?
A. Mr. Zullo vehemently disagreed with me and articulated that.
Q. Articulated that to the sheriff?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. How did the sheriff respond?
A. Well, we continued with the case.
Q. And the Sheriff's Office continued to pay Mr. Montgomery as a confidential informant during the time you were on the case, correct?
A. Yes, ma'am.
See Anglin's Oct. 9, 2015 testimony at 2862.
Mar. 9, 2014
Brian Reilly, a former member of the Arpaio-Zullo Cold Case Posse, writes an article that is published on birther debunker/blogger Dr. Conspiracy’s blog. See “Banned ‘Birther’ Breaks the BR Censorship Barrier,” Obama Conspiracy Theories, Mar. 9, 2014.
“Reilly indicate[s] he believes that there is no “universe shattering evidence” and that for all practical purposes the CCP investigation is done.” Reality Check’s Cold Case Posse Timeline - 2014 (RC Radio Blog) (summarizing the Reilly article).
See also Ray Stern, “Unmarked Posse Cars to Ditch Government Plates After Birther's Tell-All Article,” Phoenix New Times, Apr. 7, 2014 (reporting on some "fallout" as a result of info re: CCP revealed by Reilly).
Mar. 10, 2014
★ Seattle Operation Exhibit: A document – Email from Beverly Owens-Prindle to Travis Anglin, Joel Floyd, Brian Stutsman re Refund of CI Funds (MELC198446-447) – is admitted into evidence in the 2015 Melendres contempt hearings as Exhibit 2525. See Sheridan's Sept. 25, 2015 testimony at 1327. This email shows that in early 2014, MCSO used HIDTA funds to pay Montgomery.
Mar. 12, 2014
Arpaio tells Newsmax that he is considering a run for Arizona Governor, but that doing so would affect “sensitive things.” As reported by Newsmax, Arpaio states:
"If I'm going to do it, the only problem is that I have to resign as sheriff," he added. "I have a lot of things going on, a lot of sensitive things going on."
Arpaio declined to be more specific — only saying: "If I leave, it's all going to be in vain. So I have to weigh that."
Birther debunker/blogger Dr. Conspiracy publishes an article on Zullo, “The Zullo enigma,” Obama Conspiracy Theories, Mar. 12, 2014.
Mar. 13, 2014
Randy Foreman posts the following on BirtherReport.com: “In recent months, the investigation by the Arizona law enforcement agency has taken some dramatic turns. One such turn involves a criminal case separate from the actual birth certificate. There was also the promise that "major media" is ready to break the release of the information. In addition, there was the disclosure that employees of the Defense Advance Research Projects Agency had some involvement, plus a list of the IP addresses of suspects at the White House who may have forged the April 27, 2011 released Obama Birth Certificate.”
Mar. 14?15, 2014
Mark Gillar reportedly is working with Arpaio on material to be released at the promised upcoming press conference on the "universe shattering" information, according to comments made in a BirtherReport article as reported in this Free Republic Post (#16 & #31):
“I’m involved in the new release. Nothing in is from two years ago. NOTHING! Again, you’re lying. You have no idea how much work is going on behind the scenes.
“I’m not sure where you got the idea that the CCP has collected millions. That is a complete lie.
* * *
I’m involved in the new release. Nothing in is from two years ago. NOTHING! Again, you’re lying.
You have no idea how much work is going on behind the scenes. If you think because Arpaio isn’t sending you a daily briefing that nothing is happening then I welcome you to continue living in blissful ignorance.”
“It would be great if I could say more to shut all the doubters up once and for all. Like I told Furtive, if you don’t like or trust Arpaio, take it to your local Sheriff and see what happens.”
“Things are a bit different this time. The LFBC and Selective Service Card investigations resulted in the discovery of many other crimes that were committed by this regime. Some of which will piss off democrats and republicans alike. Don’t focus on a timeline. As far as I’m concerned as long as it breaks by summer and impacts the 2014 midterms, I’ll be happy. The delays are coming because of the amount of time that is taking to retrieve and log the large amount evidence as well as make sure the proper chain of custody is preserved and recorded. The evidence is different this time. I’d back off criticizing the CCP. You’ll have a lot of egg on your face when this is over if you continue.”
* * * *
After Mar. 15, 2014
★ Seattle Operation Exhibit. A document - "Document created to keep track of various expenditures" (MELC199632-33) - is later admitted into evidence as Exhibit 2085 in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings. See Mackiewicz Oct. 29, 2015 testimony at tbd.
Note. While the document is undated, it references amounts paid "up until March 15th, 2014" and , per other testimony, MCSO continued to pay Montgomery past March 15. As such, it seems reasonable to speculate that this document was prepared sometime shortly after March 15, 2014.
Per eyewitness account from the Oct. 29 hearing, Mackiewicz testified that he created this document to outline all Seattle Operation expenses. (Note: This information will be confirmed or clarified/corrected upon review of the transcript.)
This document is later docketed as ECF 1507-9, filed in support of Plaintiffs’ Oct. 30, 2015 Opposition to Zullo's Oct. 26 Motion for Extension of Time (to find an attorney). The document reflects that, as of March 15, 2015,
- MCSO has paid Montgomery at least $26,700* in cash (including $1,200 for computer equipment).
*Note. While the document states (p. 2) that "approximately 26,700" has been paid "up until Mar. 15, 2014, the sum of the cash payments is actually $32,100.
- MCSO has paid approximately $6,700 for computer equipment* purchased for the investigation.
*Note. The document also reflects (on p. 1) that $2,100 of Posse funds were used and, although it is unclear what the posse funds were used to purchase, two different equipment expenditures were $2,100.
See ECF 1507-9 at 2.
Mar. 17, 2014
Judge Snow issues a 17-page Order setting a status conference for March 24, See ECF 656. He requires the attendance of all parties, plus Arpaio and Sheridan. As explained in the introductory comments of the Order:
"The hearing arises from the Monitor’s early evaluation of some materials provided by the parties. These materials concern the actions of the parties taken between the entry of the Court’s Order on October 2, 2013 (“Injunction”) (Doc. 606) and the Monitor’s appointment on January 17, 2014. The Monitor has considered various concerns expressed by the parties and made a recommendation to the Court that it take early corrective action to avoid the perpetuation of patterns of conduct that may not be in good faith compliance with the Court’s Injunction. These matters include:
(1) some matters that were the subject of training conducted prior to MCSO’s Significant Operation in October 2013*; and,
(2) MCSO’s appointment of the Community Liaison Officer* required by the Injunction.
The Court also has concerns about and wishes to discuss:
(3) the adequacy of the notice, times, locations, and facilities of the community meetings required by the Injunction and conducted by the MCSO;
(4) matters concerning Monitor staff access to MCSO personnel, facilities, and information;
(5) revisions of some of the dates in the Order; and,
(6) the parties’ requests concerning the Court’s publication of the two orders at issue here.
Id. at 1-2 (line spacing added for readability).
*Note: The training session at issue -- during which Sheridan and Arpaio mischaracterized and ridiculed the Court's orders, took place shortly before October 18, 2013. See also Stephen Lemons, “Joe Arpaio's Chief Deputy Jerry Sheridan Mouths Off, Arpaio and Sheridan Head to the Woodshed March 24,” Phoenix New Times, Mar. 18, 2014.
For additional information on the MCSO's appointment of the Community Liaison Officer, see Dec. 23, 2013; see also Stephen Lemons, “Joe Arpaio's "Community Liaison" Deputy Hector Martinez Finds Anti-Latino E-mails "Funny",” Phoenix New Times, Mar. 20, 2014.
Birther debunker/blogger Dr. Conspiracy publishes an article about the pending case in Alabama and Zullo’s involvement in same. See “Zullo irrelevant in Alabama,” Obama Conspiracy Theories, Mar. 17, 2014.
Mar. 21, 2014
During his Freedom Friday radio show, Carl Gallups briefly discusses with Mike Zullo the status of the Arpaio-Zullo investigations. PPSimmons, Mike Zullo: "It WILL Happen - Please be PATIENT!" - Explains Delays), YouTube, Mar. 22, 2014. When Gallups asks Zullo for an update on the "universe shattering" press conference that was expected to happen in March, Zullo responds as follows (layperson's unofficial transcript):
[00:17] ZULLO: Well, Carl, I can't obviously divulge any information, but what I can tell you is, you just have to be patient ... we have a target date in March; whether that's going to happen or not is still up in the air. But if it doesn't, I can guarantee you it will. Just understand that there are a lot of legal logistics that have to take place, and we are still corrobrating and vetting information. So ... just be patient. I know people are very anxious for March, but I guess the best way I could put it - Sheriff Arpaio is gonna serve no wine before its time.
Zullo also confirms that the "investigation is going on powerfully and smoothly." [Id. at ~ 3:09].
Mar. 24, 2014
Judge Snow holds the scheduled status conference. See Minutes of Proceeding (ECF 660); Transcript Proceeding (ECF 662). During during the hearing, he calls out Arpaio and Sheridan for mischaracterizations of his order during an October 2013 MCSO training session.
Judge Snow question Sheridan at some length about the October 2013 training session in which Sheridan mischaracterized (and belittled) the Court's prior orders. ECF 662 at 24- 38. Sheridan says that "I can tell you that I am ashamed of some of the things that I said during that briefing." Id. at 25.
During discussions of corrective actions that need to be taken, Judge Snow states the following:
Let me just raise something, and I appreciate that. I certainly hope it will be true. I hope this is an early corrective that won't need to be repeated, or that I won't have to use the coercive authority of this Court, because I'm not anxious to promote some sort of a confrontation between your authority and mine. I really am not. But that doesn't mean I'm unwilling to do it.
Id. at 36. Tim Casey (defense counsel) recommends, as corrective action, that the MCSO work with the plaintiffs to create a document that will "summarize the case and make specific point-by-point clarifications -- actually, corrections about what this order requires" and then distribute it "completely throughout the entire MCSO." Id. at 32.
Andre Segura (plaintiffs counsel) "agree[s] that there needs to be a statement from the MCSO correcting the prior misrepresentations by Chief Sheridan and Sheriff Arpaio. We think that should be signed by Sheriff Arpaio and Chief Deputy Sheridan." Id. at 42. Casey responds that he has no objection "at first blush" but will consider it. Id. at 43.
Judge Snow responds that "I'm going to require -- I think it's perfectly reasonable to have you negotiate with plaintiffs a rather understandable brief summary of what is a very detailed recitation of my evidence, but whatever it is is going to have to be signable by Sheriff Arpaio and by Deputy Chief Sheridan to get my approval." Id. at 44.
Judge Snow later remarks:
": ...Chief Deputy Sheridan is still the chief deputy of Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. I've got a monitor. He's got a great team. They get complete access to every training, everything that happens. If Chief Deputy Sheridan does it again [i.e., makes statements like he did in the October 2013 training], this doesn't just serve as a corrective; this serves as creating a record. And if I have to use the coercive power of this Court, I don't want to do it, but I will have laid a record."
Id. at 47. Judge Snow also addresses the concerns raised about the appointment of Hector Martinez as Community Liaison in light of his history (among other things) involvement in the Human Smuggling Unit and distribution of emails disparaging to Latinos. Id. at 51-52.
Additionally, Judge Snow addresses issues regarding the Community Advisory Board. Id. at 52-65. During this discussion, Judge Snow remarks:
"I have to tell you that the monitor has and I have received a number of complaints about the quality of the meetings that have been conducted by the sheriff, both formally and informally, in terms of them saying things about me requiring to do things when in fact it was their suggestion about the demeaning of this order; about Chief Trombi, for example, rolling his eyes.
By the way, I understand that there was a March 15th meeting that was taped by the MCSO; I'd like to get a copy of that tape if it exists."
Id. at 54-55. He then discusses with the parties whether it made sense -- in light of recent events (discussed above) -- to consider modifying the injunction provisions such that the Monitor, rather than MCSO, deals with the various community outreach functions set forth in the injunction. Id. at 55-65.
Finally, Judge Snow addresses reports he has received that MCSO personnel had been instructed not to talk to the Court Monitor without an attorney present (id. at 65-73) and Plaintiffs' request for him to publish his prior orders (id. at 76-76).
For additional summaries of the proceeding, see, e.g., Stephen Lemons, “Joe Arpaio, Jerry Sheridan Spanked by Judge G. Murray Snow Over Melendres Remarks,” Phoenix New Times, Mar. 24, 2014; Megan Cassidy, "U.S. judge rebukes top aide of Arpaio," Arizona Republic, Mar. 25, 2014; Jude Joffe-Block, “Arpaio, Chief Deputy Admonished By Judge,” KJZZ, Mar. 24, 2014; and Fernanada Santos, "Angry Judge Says Sheriff Defied Order on Latinos," New York Times, Mar. 24, 2014.
Mar. 26, 2014
Arpaio sends out a fundraising letter in which he complaints about "Rampant UNFOUNDED [sic] charges of racism and racial profiling in my office." See image of letter as published with Stephen Lemons, “Joe Arpaio Lies About Racial Profiling, and MCSO Deputies Screw Up on Video (Again),” Phoenix New Times, Mar. 28, 2014.
Mar. 27, 2014
Judge Snow issues an order addressing several matters discussed during the March 24 hearing and setting another status conference for April 4. See ECF 663. Regarding the matters discussed during the March 24 hearing, Judge Snow orders as follows:
MCSO must issue a corrective statement. The Court orders the parties to work out a "accurate and brief summary of" the Court's May 24, 2013 Findings of Fact/Conclusions of Law and October 3 2013 Permanent Injunction:
"In particular this summary shall identify and correct the errors in the comments given during the training in October 2013. The summary will also particularly emphasize that deputies are to give their best effort in documenting their perceived impression of the race and ethnicity of the driver and passengers after every stop.
In order to ensure that this corrective summary is understood as being the official position of the MCSO and as a correction of the misinformation provided during the October 2013 meeting, this corrective summary shall be signed by Sheriff Arpaio and Chief Deputy Sheriff Sheridan. The parties shall submit this summary to the Monitor and the Court for approval. The draft corrective summary shall be submitted to the Court within 14 days of the date of this order. After it has been approved by the Court, the Defendants shall immediately distribute it to all MCSO personnel, and direct them to read it in its entirety."
Id. at 1-2, 4.
Responsibility for conducting the Community Outreach Programs will be transferred to the Court Monitor. The Court attaches proposed changes to the Permanent Injunction to effectuate this change (Appendix A) and orders parties to provide comments by April 3. Id. at 2-3.
The Court's prior opinions will be published. The Court notes that defendants had withdrawn their previous objection to publication. Id. at 3, 4.
Compliance Deadlines. The Court sets forth a procedure for adjusting certain deadlines set forth in the injunction. Id. at 3-4.
David Trombi Video must be produced. The Court orders MCSO to submit the video of the March 15 community meeting before the April 3 status conference, Id. at 4, 5.
MCSO provides the Trombi video tape to the Court. ECF 664 (PDF).
★ Seattle Operation Exhibit: A document – "List 2" dated 3/27/2014 – is later entered into evidence as Exhibit 2922 in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings. See Mackiewicz Oct. 28 testimony at 3726-27. Per Mackiewicz, he created this list, which contained the items that Montgomery had promised provide according to his Free Talk Agreement (but never did actually provide). Id.
★ Seattle Operation Exhibit: A document – "Check List for Elmer" (Check List for Dennis [Montgomery]) dated 3/27/2014" – is later admitted into evidence as Exhibit 2921 in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings. See Mackiewicz Oct. 29, 2015 testimony at 3724-26. Per Mackiewicz, this list was created by Zullo. Id.
Mar. 28, 2014
Judge Snow issues an order requiring David Trombi's attendance at the upcoming hearing. See ECF 665 (PDF). After noting that MCSO had provided the video to the Court, Judge Snow states as follow:s
"During the meeting, which was videotaped by the MCSO, the members of the implementation team and Deputy Chief David Trombi answered questions from the audience. As Defendant’s counsel explained in submitting the videotape, Chief Trombi made errors in his statements at the meeting which the MCSO now acknowledges at least in part. (Doc. 664.)
As the Court has indicated, the MCSO may characterize or mischaracterize the Court’s Order in its public statements without being held in contempt by this Court merely for the misleading nature of such statements. Nevertheless, such statements are not irrelevant to the question of good faith compliance with the Order in other ways. Although the Court does not question counsel’s representation about what Chief Trombi now knows, the Court will require the attendance of Deputy Chief David Trombi at the Status Conference on April 3 so that it may ask him under oath a few questions pertaining to the meeting."
Id. at 1-2.
Mar. 29, 2014
★ MCSO CI Payment to Montgomery. Brian Mackiewcz pays Montgomery $5,000.00 in cash, per Exhibit 2915 later admitted in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings.
Mar. 30, 2014
PPSimmons publishes an "exclusive" report - “Zullo on Release Date: PPSIMMONS will know first!,” Mar. 30, 2014. According to this report, PPSimmons asked Gallups about when he expected Arpaio and Zullo to publicly announce the findings of their investigations “into the Obama fraud matter”:
Gallups responded, “As I have been saying for quite some time now. They will release it when they release it. They are making no apologies for doing this thing correctly. There is much at stake here. They have tons of information and documentation to verify, check and re-check. There are legal technicalities as well. Zullo said last year that they were shooting for a late March 2014 release date. That was an estimate. It has always been an estimate. It doesn’t look like that date goal is going to be the time of release now. However, Zullo has assured me the investigations are still moving forward full speed ahead and release conferences will be forthcoming. They are not setting dates, and neither am I.”
Gallups said, “Mike Zullo contacted me today. He assured me that when information is ready to be released, the followers, subscribers, and readers at PPSIMMONS will be the very first to know about it. Zullo told me, ‘If people don’t hear it from me, it isn’t true. Furthermore, when I release information about this it will be released to Carl Gallups and through PPSIMMONS.’”
… Again, when information is ready to be released, we will get those dates out to you immediately. Until then, we will wait for Arpaio and Zullo to complete their task. When it comes forward, we want it to be good. And, it will be – I am convinced of it!”
April-June 2014
MCSO RICO FUNDS: According to the Fourth Quarter FY2014 RICO Report published by the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, MCSO received and spent $0 in State/Local RICO Funds between April 1 and June 30, 2014.
April 2014
Anglin "removes" Zullo from the Seattle Operation - temporarily - until Arpaio reinstates Zullo.
★ According to Anglin, in/around April 2014, he "successfully remove[s] Zullo from the Seattle Operation. See Anglin Oct. 9, 2015 tesitmony at 2863.
Q. How did that happen?
A. Mr. Zullo had returned to Phoenix. I was in Phoenix, and there were conversations going back and forth between myself, Mike Zullo, Dennis Montgomery, and Brian Mackiewicz. And relationships were being strained and things were very tense, and I thought that Mike Zullo was overstepping his boundaries, and I felt that he was a detractor to the investigation.
So I called Mike and I told him that he wouldn't be returning back to Washington, and that I wasn't going to use him on the case any more. And then I called the sheriff and chief deputy and told them what I had done.
* * *
A. And it may have been earlier than that; it may have been April when I removed Mr. Zullo from the case. But when I called the sheriff I explained to him that I didn't think it was productive to have him continue to go up there any more, I thought he was problematic. And the sheriff, at least in that conversation, said that he would support me on that, and I had to do what I had to do.
Q. And then what happened?
A. Mike Zullo returned to the case.
Q. Who put Mike Zullo back on the case?
A. Well, the only person that could give him the authority would have been the sheriff.
Id. at 2863-2864.
According to Sheridan, <under construction>.
According to Arpaio, <under construction>.
Apr. ?, 2014
Montgomery provides "approximately 50" hard drives to MCSO personnel. See Melendres ECF 1166 at 17; see also id. at 24-25 (email from Zullo to Montgomery referencing 60 hard drives).
According to Mackiewicz's later email, Montgomery claims that these drives "contained classified and sensitive information that he obtained while working at either eTreppid, or Blixware on behalf of federal government as a CIA contractor." ECF 1166 at 17.
Mackiewicz will later inform Montgomery and his attorney, Larry Klayman, that MCSO experts have concluded that
(a) Montgomery "deliberately complied massive amounts of data on to these drives for the purpose of obfuscating the fact the data itself contained no evidence to support Dennis Montgomery's claims. There was no sensitive information contained on any of these 50 hard drives";
(b) Emails contained on the drive were of questionable validity ("our experts brought question in the validity concerning an number of emails Dennis Montgomery provided in the same hard drives."); and
(c) Also of questionable validity was information provided to support Montgomery's contention that the federal government had "harvested" information in violation of the Fourth Amendment ("information ... cannot be sourced for validity").
Zullo will later assert that MCSO's experts had Montgomery's drives examined and "there was absolutely nothing of value on them. To be clear there was nothing of a classified nature contained on any of them and as matter of fact there was evidence of fabrication on numinous levels."
Note. According to the Melendres Plaintiffs, "at one point in time," these hard drives are stored -- apparently by Mackiewicz, Zullo, and/or Anglin, in the 4-bedroom house rented by MCSO." See Sheridan Sept. 25 testimony at 1320.
Sometime After April ? 2014
At some point after Montgomery turns over the 50 hard drives to MCSO personnel, MCSO personnel transport the "hard drives ... or at least copies of those hard drives," to Washington DC, according to Melendres Plaintiffs. See Arpaio Oct. 2 testimony at 2332. The purpose of this was to enable the ex-NSA employees to look at them. Id. at 2333. Thereafter, per Plaintiffs, MCSO personnel transport the hard drives "back from Washington to Phoenix ... after that review by the former NSA people." Id.
See also Zullo April 9, 2015 email to Montgomery ("The Sheriff’s Office painfully drove [the hard drives] back to AZ as purported evidence of classified information gathered by you.")
Apr. 1, 2014
Phoenix New Times notes that March has passed without the promised "universe-shattering" information from the Arpaio-Zullo birther investigation. See Matthew Hendley, "Joe Arpaio's Birther Squad Fails to Provide Any Evidence Yet Again," Phoenix New Times, Apr. 1, 2014.
Apr. 2, 2014
MCSO/Arpaio file their "Notice of Positions and Objections to Appendix A of the Court's Order Dated March 27, 2014 and to Deadline Dates." ECF 666.
Apr. 3, 2014
Judge Snow holds the scheduled hearing. See Minutes of Proceeding (ECF 667); Transcript (ECF 672). David Trombi is called as a witness under oath. Among other things, Trombi testifies that he had never read the Court's May 24, 2013 Findings of Fact/Conclusions of Law and October 3 2013 Permanent Injunction until he was preparing for this hearing:
Q. Had you ever read my findings of fact and conclusions of law prior to the time that you read it in preparation for this hearing?
A. Prior to. Ashamedly, no, sir.
Q. All right. Had you ever read my injunction order before the time that you read it just to prepare for this hearing?
A. No, sir.
Q. Do you believe it might have been incumbent upon you, since my order had to do with the operation of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, for you to read that order and understand its basis?
A. Absolutely.
Q. Let me ask you, where did you get the characterization of my order that you gave in the meeting two weeks ago?
A. I thought about that, and I cannot, in all honesty, tell you who specifically. I can tell you, sir, that I heard those incorrect statements that I made in conversation in -- in meetings or in settings with others within the Sheriff's Office that -- that those statements over the last, I suppose, six months kind of permeated my brain, unfortunately, and stuck with me, and unfortunately, and regrettably, I used those.
Id. at 10-11. Trombi testified that he could not recall specifically who made the statements (id. at 11-14):
Q....Whether or not you heard Chief Deputy Sheridan say it, you had heard it a number of times and you can't be specific because you've heard it so many times at other places throughout the MCSO.
A. That is correct, sir.
Q. All right. And you can't give me a specific idea where you got that -- from any specific conversation about that 14 seconds, other than that just seemed to be -- and again, I don't want to put words in your mouth, so correct me -- but that was sort of the general received knowledge that's over at the MCSO.
A. It was my general perceived knowledge, yes.
Q. All right. And you obtained that from others at the MCSO, because you didn't come up with it on your -- on your own, correct?
A. I did not, correct.
Q. And was that the view that seems to -- seemed to generally prevail, as far as you're aware, over at the MCSO?
A. Yes.
Id. at 15-16. Judge Snow (and then Mr. Pochada) question Trombi on a number of additional matters. Id.i at 16-32. Following Trombi's testimony, Judge Snow discusses the parties' responses and objections to his proposed changes to the injunction (id. at 36-63, discussing the appendix attached to the Mar. 27 order) and the "Corrective Statement" required by the same order (id. at 63-88).
See also Megan Cassidy, “Judge: No more mischaracterizations in Arpaio case,” Arizona Republic, Apr. 3, 2014; David Schwartz, “Judge grills Arizona sheriff's aide in racial profiling case,” Reuters, Apr. 3, 2014.
Apr. 4, 2014
Judge Snow issues an order amending the permanent injunction. See ECF 670. The amendments address in two key areas – namely:
- Pre-Planned Operations – The MCSO is required to provide documentation within 10 days (instead of 30) after pre-planned significant operations and the Court Monitor must hold community outreach within 40 days (rather than 30) days after such operations and may investigate matters that arise during such outreach efforts (id. at 2-3); and
- Community Outreach Program – This program will be directed and run by the Court Monitor (rather than MCSO personnel), who will be responsible for a variety of revised duties (id. at 3-6).
Judge Snow issues a separate order requiring the MCSO to submit a proposed training schedule by April 10. ECF 671 (PDF).
Apr. 7, 2014
MCSO/Arpaio submit their "First Comprehensive Internal Assessment by the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office" (pursuant to the Permanent Injunction). See ECF 673.
Apr. 8, 2014
During a "special edition" of PPSimmons Radio, Carl Gallups briefly discusses with Mike Zullo the status of the Arpaio-Zullo investigations. See PPSimmons, Mike Zullo with the VERY LATEST INFO! 4-8-14, YouTube, Apr. 8, 2014. Gallups asks Zullo for "the very latest" on his investigation, Zullo responds (layperson’s unofficial transcript):
[00:55] ZULLO: Both investigations are still going full forward ... It's a little delicate, there's not a lot that I can discuss, obviously, for investigational reasons. But I can assure everyone that this is on track. You know, I said March as a target date, anticipating that we would have this wrapped up by that time frame. But apparently, and as you can all deduce, that we have more information here that has surfaced and we are vetting that information … we want to be as thorough as we can.
[1:31] In addition there are other factors involved; there are other agencies, if you will, involved; there are other people now involved and some of these things require us to maybe take a little extra time in making sure that everything we have is verifiable. So, it’s going to take a little longer than we anticipated, but you know what, that’s nothing unusual in an investigation – as you well know Carl, these things take time, and we have to take the time, we have to do our work diligently. So I’m asking everyone just to be patient - this is on track, it is not going away, there will be an announcement in the future – in the very near future. To put a date on it, obviously I can’t …
* * * *
[3:52] Like in any investigation, we didn’t anticipate the depth of information that we’re uncovering and it is deeper than we thought, and that requires a lot more effort.
Apr. 10, 2014
MCSO/Arpaio submit the "Parties' Counsels' Agreed Upon Draft Corrective Statement by Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office" in response to the Court's Mar. 27 [ECF 663] order. See ECF 674. The notice states: "Undersigned counsel understands from a telephonic conversation this afternoon with MCSO Chief Jack MacIntyre that Sheriff Arpaio and Chief Deputy Sheridan are agreeable to signing Exhibit 1 as written if approved by the Court." Id. at 1.
See also Stephen Lemons, “Joe Arpaio's "Corrective Statement" In Melendres Submitted To Federal Judge,” Phoenix New Times, Apr. 14, 2014; Alex Johnson, “Arpaio Ready to Accept Racial Profiling Ruling: Documents,” NBC News, Apr. 14, 2014.
MCSO/Arpaio also submit the "Proposed Training Schedule" required by the Court's April 4 [ECF 671] order. See ECF 675.
Apr. 13, 2014
📄 Seattle Operation Document: A 12-page document – Email from Dennis Montgomery to Mike Zullo attaching rejection letters dated 4/13/2014 – is later listed as potential Exhibit 2088 in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings. See Plaintiffs’ Oct. 12, 2015 List of Exhibits, ECF 1462-2. The contents of this document have not yet been made public, but it seems reasonable to speculate that this relates to Montgomery and the Seattle Operation.
Apr. 15, 2014
MCSO/Arpaio file an "Amended Notice Re the April 10, 2014 Lodging of the Parties' Counsels' Agreed Upon Draft Corrective Statement and Defendants' New Revised Unilateral Draft Corrective Statement Dated April 15, 2014," See ECF 676. This notice states (in part) as follows):
"Since the date of the filing, instead of accurately reporting to the public that the Draft Corrective Statement is a summary of the Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the benefit of MCSO personnel, the mainstream media, Spanish language media, and a local tabloid have represented to the public that the Draft Corrective Statement is, among other things, an admission by Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio that he and the MCSO did, in fact, use racial profiling tactics in its law enforcement operations. That type of media representation is inaccurate and misleading. See, e.g. the following: [reference to several recent news reports*]
Based on the foregoing, the media characterizations of the April 10, 2014 Draft Corrective Statement have revealed that the April 10, 2014 draft (Dkt#674-1) is insufficiently clear and in need of revision. What appeared clear to the parties’ attorneys is obviously not clear to others. Accordingly, the defendants respectfully submit a revised Proposed Corrective Statement that will make clear to all persons who read it, including MCSO personnel and the public unfamiliar with the details of this litigation and the Court’s orders, that: (1) it is a summary of the Court’s Findings of Fact; and (2) it is not any type of admission of racial profiling by the defendants. Knowing the foregoing, the Sheriff can only sign in good-faith and in clear conscience the attached version of the Proposed Corrective Statement or its substantial facsimile to be further discussed and agreed-upon among the parties and/or the Court."
Id. at 1-2. The attached proposed amended notice contains substantial revisions clearly intended to water down the corrective statement substantially. Id. at Exhibit 1.
*Note: The Notice provides links to two videos and two news articles. However, the video links are now "private," and the links do not work. It appears that the Notice referenced the following news stories:
1. A 12News story in which the anchor reportedly said “The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office is acknowledging this afternoon that it did in fact use racial profiling tactics during neighborhood patrols.” See Jude Joffe-Block, “Judge Orders Arpaio To Distribute Statement Correcting Misinformation,” KJZZ, Apr. 16, 2014 (original story, also providing YouTube link that no longer works).
2. An unidentifiable Telemundo news report (YouTube link no longer works);
3. Alex Johnson, “Arpaio Ready to Accept Racial Profiling Ruling: Documents,” NBC News, Apr. 14, 2014; and
4. Stephen Lemons, “Joe Arpaio's "Corrective Statement" In Melendres Submitted To Federal Judge,” Phoenix New Times, Apr. 14, 2014.
See also Stephen Lemons, “Joe Arpaio, Crybaby Sheriff, Wants Do-Over of His "Corrective Statement" in Melendres,” Phoenix New Times, Apr. 16, 2014; Jude Joffe-Block, “Term 'Racial Profiling' Sparks Language Debate In MCSO Lawsuit,” KJZZ, Apr. 18, 2014.
The Melendres Plaintiffs file a "Response to Defendants' Unilateral Amended Notice re Corrective Statement. See ECF 678. Not surprisingly, Plaintiffs staunchly oppose the MCSO's proposed changes and ask the Court to order immediate dissemination of the originally agreed-upon Corrective Statement.
Apr. 16, 2014
★ MCSO CI Payment to Montgomery. Brian Mackiewcz pays Montgomery $5,000.00 in cash, per Exhibit 2914 later admitted in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings.
Apr. 17, 2014
Judge Snow issues an "Enforcement Order." See ECF 680. In this order, he makes the following findings of fact:
"a. The Sheriff and at least Chief Deputy Sheridan have, in MCSO trainings or briefings since this Court’s order, mischaracterized this Court’s May 2013 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and its October 2013 Supplemental Order to the MCSO;
b. These statements have resulted in persistent and serious misunderstandings among MCSO personnel both about the bases on which the Court made its Findings and Conclusions and also, about MCSO’s obligation to comply with this Court’s order;
c. MCSO personnel have made the same general mischaracterizations of the Court’s findings, and the bases for them, repeatedly over the last six months;
d. Those misstatements have resulted in persistent misperceptions which are widespread through the MCSO generally, including both command staff as well as other personnel, employees, and volunteers;
e. Chief Trombi never read the Court’s Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, or its Order, until this month when he was ordered by the Court to appear and answer questions;
f. Chief Trombi is unaware of any other MCSO personnel, including command staff, who have read the Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. (The Court has, nevertheless been informed by its Monitor that Captain Farnsworth, the head of the compliance unit, demonstrates an appropriately thorough knowledge of at least the Court’s October Order);
g. To rectify the constitutional violations identified in this Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, MCSO personnel must have an accurate understanding of how they have been violating the constitutional rights of members of the Plaintiff class.
h. The Sheriff and his Chief Deputy initially agreed to take voluntary corrective action, by drafting jointly with Plaintiffs a summary of the Court’s Findings and Order to be transmitted to all MCSO personnel over the signature of the Sheriff and his Chief Deputy;
i. Although the parties submitted a joint statement that had been approved by both parties and which the Sheriff and his Chief Deputy had agreed to sign and transmit to all MCSO personnel, (Doc. 674), subsequent press coverage of the statement has caused the Sheriff to withdraw his agreement to sign the statement unless alterations are made to it, (Doc. 676);
j. Those alterations came after the deadline for submitting a ready-to-sign statement, were not submitted to the Plaintiff for approval, are not acceptable to the Plaintiff class, (Doc. 678), and are unacceptable to this Court; and,
k. Defendants have not yet provided the Monitor with the curriculum for training required by the order, and thus the Monitor has not yet been able to determine whether that proposed training concerning the constitutional principles that are set forth in the Court’s previous findings and orders is accurate, effective, and appropriately integrated with new department policies and procedures and appropriately implements this Court’s orders. That process may yet take some time.
The misinformation, misunderstanding, and confusion caused by the inaccurate statements and inappropriate training that has occurred throughout the MCSO cannot wait until such future training or briefing may be approved and implemented to be corrected. They require immediate attention."
Id. at 2-3. In light of these facts, the Court orders (in part) that
- the corrective statement (as originally agreed upon) is immediately disseminated to all MCSO personnal (including civilian employees and posse members);
- all personnel below the rank of sergeant must read the summary and attest, by signature that they have done so (and taken the time to understand it) within two weeks of this order;
- all MCSO command staff with sergeant rank or higher must read the Court's entire May 2013 Findings of Fact/Conclusions of law and October 2013 Supplemental Order and attest, by signature, that they have done so (and taken the time to understand them) within two weeks;
- MCSO must maintain records of these attestations and provide them to the Monitor who will verify compliance with the order;
- the Court will hold a status conference on May 7 and, "If this Order has not been fully
implemented, Sheriff Arpaio’s attendance will be required and he may be subject to
questioning by the Court."
Id. at 3-6. See also Stephen Lemons, “Joe Arpaio Called On Carpet (Again), Judge Orders Dissemination Of "Corrective Statement" To All MCSO Personnel,” Phoenix New Times, Apr. 17, 2014; Megan Cassidy, “‘Corrective statement’ issued to MCSO employees in racial-profiling lawsuit,” Arizona Republic, Apr. 17, 2014; Jude Joffe-Block, “Judge Orders Arpaio To Distribute Statement Correcting Misinformation,” KJZZ, Apr. 16, 2014.
Arpaio issues a statement regarding the Court's ruling:
April 17, 2014
The following is a statement provided by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in response to Judge Murray Snow's Enforcement Order issued by the court today, April 17, 2014.
"This afternoon I directed all Sheriff's personnel to read the attached seven page statement.
"And as I was a top law enforcement official in the Department of Justice and the Drug Enforcement Administration as well as the recipient of awards for superior management of federal officers, the court should have every confidence that I will direct this activity to its timely completion.
"Additionally, the court previously requested my signature to be part of this statement, which I opposed. So I am pleased that today the court recognized my position on the matter and my signature will be not a part of this statement."
Note: This release is not included on the MCSO Press Release listing of 2014 Press Releases, but was reprinted by the media. See, e.g., Stephen Lemons, “Joe Arpaio Called On Carpet (Again), Judge Orders Dissemination Of "Corrective Statement" To All MCSO Personnel,” Phoenix New Times, Apr. 17, 2014.
The Melendres Plaintiffs file their Response to Defendant's Notice of Training Schedule. ECF 679 (PDF).
Apr. 18, 2014
During his Freedom Friday radio show, Carl Gallups briefly discusses the status of the Arpaio-Zullo investigations. See PPSimmons, Cold Case Posse Investigation "End Game" and Possibility of False Flag Attack - Gallups Explains, YouTube, Apr. 20, 2014. A caller asks Gallups what Arpaio/Zullo’s desired end result is (regarding release of criminal investigation information):
[2:14] GALLUPS: The desired result that Arpaio and Zullo has, the desired result that I have is to restore our Constitutional Republic and to restore the rule of law. Now, what happens in the playing out of that, you know, if courts get involved, if Congress gets involved, if people are impeached or if people are removed from office or if people go to jail – and I’m not just talking about Obama; I’m talking about Holder and … Congresspeople and whoever else is involved in all this mess – if that happens, that happens, through the legal, lawful, peaceful Constitutional process. ….
A later caller notes his concern that there will be a “false flag” operation shortly after Arpaio and Zullo release their investigation information, to which Gallups responds (layperson’s unofficial transcript):
[6:13] GALLUPS: That’s why Zullo and Arpaio are not giving away the date upon which they’re going to do this. They’d been shooting for a date in late March release date and we were holding our breath then about a possible false flag event, but now, that had to be delayed because more information has come in that’s amazing, and they’re putting all this together; it’s gonna be good, it’s gonna be right – and you’re right Steve, that’s exactly right. In the meantime, it will happen; I mean I talked to Zullo yesterday. It will happen. And this investigation and all the new information is going swimmingly, according to Zullo. He says it’s amazing the stuff they’re uncovering and the information they’re getting. So, it will happen, but they’re not gonna release the date until it’s ready, ready to roll.
Apr. 23, 2014
MCSO/Arpaio file a Motion to Clarify/Modify the Court's April 17 Order. See ECF 681; see also Stephen Lemons, “Joe Arpaio Wants Out of Part of Judge's Latest Order, and MCSO Flack Jack MacIntyre Mischaracterizes Melendres,” Phoenix New Times, Apr. 25, 2014.
Apr. 24, 2014
The Melendres Plaintiffs file a Response to MCSO/Arpaio's Motion to Clarify/Modify the Court's April 17 Order. See ECF 682.
MCSO/Arpaio file a Reply to Plaintiffs' Response to their Motion to Clarify/Modify the Court's April 15 Order. See ECF 683; see also Stephen Lemons, “Joe Arpaio Wants Out of Part of Judge's Latest Order, and MCSO Flack Jack MacIntyre Mischaracterizes Melendres,” Phoenix New Times, Apr. 25, 2014; and Stephen Lemons, “Arpaio Will Continue to Defy Judge Snow Until He's Held in Contempt,” Phoenix New Times, Apr. 24, 2014.
Apr. 29, 2014
Judge Snow issues an Order granting [in part] MCSO/Arpaio's Motion to Clarify/Modify his April 17, 2014 order -- in part. See ECF 684 (PDF). The nine-page order rejects most of MCSO/Arpaio's attempts to limit dissemination of the corrective statement but provides as follows:
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. Excusing the MCSO from certifying compliance with this Court’s Enforcement Order of those persons who Sheriff Arpaio individually lists and certified have no connection with MCSO other than that they volunteer within MCSO jails as part-time teachers or religious volunteers.
2. Excusing the MCSO from certifying compliance with this Court’s Enforcement Order of such additional persons who Sheriff Arpaio individually identifies by name, position, identification number if any, and employment status, and if he personally certifies, by his signature, that such persons:
(a) are not engaged in official or off-duty law-enforcement related functions that impact members of the Plaintiff class, and
(b) he does not anticipate placing such persons in a position that could possibly impact members of the Plaintiff class and they are not authorized to participate in an off-duty capacity in such functions; and
(c) such persons have not received instruction or training from MCSO personnel about the Court’s Order; and
(d) such persons have not received or participated in, nor will they receive or participate in any MCSO or workplace communications that misrepresent the Court’s Order; and
(e) such persons will not make public statements that can be attributed to the MCSO regarding the Court’s Order which misstate its terms.
Id. at 8-9. The Court also authorizes the Court Monitor to "to investigate whether the persons so designated by the Sheriff fit the requirements set forth in this clarifying order." Id. at 8. See also Stephen Lemons, “Joe Arpaio's Weasel Move to Exempt Posse and Jail Side from Judge's Order Largely Denied,” Phoenix New Times, Apr. 30, 2014.
Carl Gallups releases an excerpt from an interview he did on the Bill Martinez Live Show earlier today. See PPSimmons, VERY LATEST INFO! - 4/29 - Arpaio Zullo Conferences - Carl Gallups, YouTube, Apr. 29, 2014. During that interview, Martinez asked Gallups for an update on the Arpaio-Zullo investigations and upcoming conferences regarding those investigations. Per Gallups, his response is based on the very latest information given to him “last night” by Mike Zullo.
[1:08] GALLUPS: … Mike Zullo and I speak quite frequently and as a matter of fact, as late as late last night we were on the phone …[I] had a lengthy discussion with him, so I have the freshest, latest information to give to you and your audience. … First … I do not claim to be some type of official spokesperson for Sheriff Arpaio and Mike Zullo … it’s just that Mike and I are friends … that’s my role in this.
Gallups then proceeds to discuss the fact that in late 2013, Arpaio and Zullo were shooting for late March conference; he reminds the audience that there are two investigations underway, that the new investigation came as a result of the birth certificate investigation, and that information that was turned over to the MCSO and Arpaio to start a separate criminal investigation that is ongoing. He then continues (layperson's unofficial transcript):
[3:23] Here’s the thing. This investigation has progressed so powerfully and beyond expectations – is what Mike Zullo was telling me last night – the overwhelming amount of information that has piled into them since January has been absolutely astounding. Mike Zullo told me last night, he said, Look Carl, no one, no one wants this information out to the public any more than me – and Sheriff Arpaio. They know what they have; they’re sitting on top of this amazing, astounding pile of evidence and information backed up by criminal investigation, so they’re very anxious to get it out. However, it’s not gonna happen until it’s ready. … They get one shot at this. If they mess it up, if they flub it up, it’s just over, and this is too big and too long and too in detail to in depth to flub up. So they’re being very careful with this pile of new evidence and information that has come in; they’re going through it; they’re verifying it all. There are legal loopholes to jump through, legal logistics to take care of.
[4:31] But the bottom line, Mike Zullo told me last night, he said, Carl, this will happen. It will happen. It will happen sooner than later. It is still – he said it is beyond universe-shattering at this point. He’s said .. it’s just beyond description what they have. It is history-making – the evidence and information that they have. . . .
[5:33] And when it hits the American public, it is going to be – again I will use the word – universe-shattering. . . . The evidence that they’re going to present is going to be so overwhelming that, I believe, something legal will have to happen. It will have to happen. . . .
[6:05] Mike Zullo said last night, he said, Carl look, when this comes out, the American people will say this was worth the wait, this was worth the wait. . . .
* * * *
May 2014
During meetings in May 2014, Anglin tells Arpaio to distance himself from Mike Zullo and Dennis Montgomery. See Melendres ECF 1365-1 at 10 (Anglin Depo at 74).
★ ANGLIN'S TESTIMONY
According to Anglin, following his April call to Arpaio, notifying Arpaio that he's removed Zullo from the Seattle Operation, he has a follow up conversation in May 2014:
Q. So after the April 2014 conversation with the sheriff, did you have a subsequent conversation with the sheriff in approximately May 2014?
A. I did.
Q. Tell me about the May 2014 conversation.
A. I told the sheriff that I thought he should distance himself from Mike Zullo and Dennis Montgomery.
Q. And why is that?
A. I felt that both of them had credibility issues, and I felt [2865] that this case was going to turn into something that was going to be problematic for our office.
Q. How did Sheriff Arpaio respond?
A. He asked me who the fuck I thought I was.
Q. Are those his actual words that he used?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Forgive me, Your Honor.
Q. Did he say anything else?
A. He went on to explain to me that Mike Zullo was a good man, and that he had, in fact, solved the birth certificate case.
And I hadn't seen the case; therefore, I had no right to be speaking about somebody like that.
Q. So Mr. Zullo was back on the case as of May 2014?
A. Yes, ma'am.
* * *
Anglin Oct. 9, 2015 testimony at 2864-2865.
SHERIDAN'S TESTIMONY
Under construction
ARPAIO'S TESTIMONY
On Oct. 2, 2015, Arpaio testified about this matter as follows:
Q. Sheriff, you knew at some point that Sergeant Anglin and Mr. Zullo were having some personality problems in getting along with each other during this work on the Seattle investigation?
A. Yes.
Q. Sergeant Anglin told you that you should separate yourself from Mr. Zullo, Mr. Montgomery, and the Seattle investigation [2375] correct?
A. I may recall that. I think there was much consternation with the three, little personality problems.
Arpaio's Oct. 2, 2015 testimony at 2374-2375.
May 2014 Part II
Following Anglin's May 2014 recommendation to Arpaio that Arpaio distance himself from both Montgomery and Zullo, Anglin is removed from the Seattle Operation.
★ ANGLIN'S TESTIMONY:
According to Anglin's later testimony:
"Q. What did Chief Deputy Sheridan tell you when you were removed from the case?
A. When I was removed from the case?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. He just simply told me that the sheriff didn't want me to be part of the case any more, and I said, Yes, sir."
Anglin's Oct. 9, 2015 testimony at 2866.
ARPAIO'S TESTIMONY
According to Arpaio's later testimony:
"Q. After Sergeant Anglin told you that [i.e., to distance yourself from Montgomery and Zullo], you thought the best thing to do would be to bring Sergeant Anglin back to Phoenix and take him off the Seattle investigation, correct?
A. I think that's what the decision -- that was a decision by the chief deputy and me."
Arpaio's Oct. 2, 2015 testimony at 2374-2375.
SHERIDAN'S TESTIMONY
According to Sheridan's later testimony: <under construction>.
May 2, 2014
Judge Snow issues an order setting a status conference for May 14 and requiring Douglas Irish and Sandi Wilson (of Maricopa County) to attend. See ECF 686 (PDF).
May 7, 2014
Judge Snow holds a status conference during which several matters are discussed. See Transcript of May 7 Hearing: ECF 697 (open portion of hearing); and ECF 701 (initially sealed portion of hearing.
The Court-Ordered MCSO Compliance Statement
During the open portion of the hearing, the MCSO reports on the dissemination of the Statement of Compliance to all MCSO personnel (as previously ordered by Judge Snow - see April 17, 2013 Order [ECF 680]. See also Stephen Lemons, “Joe Arpaio Kneels Before Federal Power, Complies with Judge's Enforcement Order,” Phoenix New Times, May 7, 2014; Jude Joffe-Block, "Judge Finds MCSO In Compliance With Latest Order," KJZZ, May 07, 2014.
The Armendariz Situation
During the sealed portion of the hearing, the MCSO discloses that they’ve discovered lots of troubling stuff in search of Armandariz’s house that occurred after his death. See Transcript of May 7 Hearing [ECF 701]. Materials discovered included, but were not limited to (as later summarized by Judge Snow during the May 16, 2015 hearing [Transcript-ECF 715]) the following:
- “identification, documents, money, drugs, other matters that seemed to implicate some of the issues in this case…”; and
- “540, approximately, DVDs that appeared to be from an eyeglass camera, or perhaps from a dash camera that was also installed in Deputy Armendariz's vehicle. They characterized some of these stops as showing what the MCSO characterized as problematic behavior by Deputy Armendariz. And on questioning of the Court, the MCSO revealed that the limited amount of videotape stops that they had reviewed also demonstrated that others may have been present during some of these -- others were present during some of these stops, including a specific supervisor, who also testified at the trial of this matter.”
Id. at 5-6. Also disclosed during this hearing was that:
- “MCSO had no policy concerning an individual deputy's ability to record traffic stops, and that he believed that there was reason to think that there was other officer-owned recording devices that were being used by members of the MCSO”;
- “there were some video-mount cameras -- dash-mount cameras that had been issued by MCSO that had been operating for a number of years, and some body-mount video cameras that had been making recordings of traffic stops for a number of years”; and
- "[there were] audio recording devices that were routinely used by deputies for a number of years."
Id. at 6-7.
Note: For a good “primer” on the Armendariz May 2014 matter, see Stephen Lemons, “A Deputy's Death Opens the Door Onto a World Corruption in Sheriff Joe's MCSO,” Phoenix New Times, May 29, 2014. See also “Evidence from cases found at ex-deputy’s Phoenix home,” Associated Press/KTAR, May 9, 2014; Megan Cassidy, “Former deputy recorded thousands of own traffic stops,” Arizona Republic, May 16, 2014; Christopher Sign,” Sheriff Joe Arpaio, MCSO leaders want to know how many deputies are recording own traffic stops,” abc15.com, May 20, 2014.
May 9, 2014
★ MCSO CI Payment to Montgomery. Brian Mackiewcz pays Montgomery $5,000.00 in cash, per Exhibit 2913 later admitted in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings.
May 10, 2014
Arpaio grants an interview to Chris Pareja, host of “The Right Side,” a conservative public access cable channel show in Mountain View, CA. The Right Side, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Episode 309, YouTube, May 10, 2014. Arpaio does not expressly refer to the ongoing criminal investigation that grew out of the birther investigation. However, in discussing his potential run for governor of Arizona, Arpaio states the following (layperson’s unofficial transcript from YouTube video):
[17:55] There’s rumors I may run for governor; I’ll make that decision in two weeks ... uh ... If I do run, I have to leave the office. I don’t want to leave the office. I have some sensitive investigations going on, including the birth certificate … and I’m not done with that yet. . . . So I’m trying to find out who is behind it now; that’s the key.
Mike Zullo later indicates that this statement and/or similar Arpaio statements are referring to the criminal investigation. See, e.g., Zullo’s appearance on Gallups’ May 23 Freedom Friday show at ~3:06 (Zullo stating that “Sheriff Arpaio had made a decision during a recent telephone interview that you know, maybe it was time that we let people know why the March date had elapsed and we did not come out like we anticipated. And the Sheriff made it pretty clear in this interview, and I believe it’s up on a lot of the major sites, that we are honing in on, we believe, the people responsible for the creation of that fraudulent document.”); Id. at ~ 8:26 (“. But it is gonna happen. I mean the Sheriff wouldn’t make the statements he made. The Sheriff made it really clear, don’t be fooled by people telling you that he gave up. ‘Cause he didn’t. And we didn’t. And we’re continuing…”)
See also Sheriff Joe confirms birther investigation ongoing, Obama Conspiracy Theories, May 23, 2014 (discussing Arpaio’s interview and providing more complete transcript of interview excerpts); RC Radio Blog Cold Case Posse Timeline – 2014 (May 10 entry – discussing this interview).
Week of May 10-14, 2014
Travis Anglin is apparently in Seattle, meeting with Montgomery. As of this time, Montgomery is still on the MCSO payroll. See Melendres ECF 1365-1 at 10 (Anglin Depo at 74).
May 12, 2014
According to Larry Klayman, Dennis Montgomery “suffered a brain aneurysm and a related multi-infarct stroke on May 12, 2014. He suffered both a hemorrhagic stroke (caused by ruptured blood vessels that cause brain bleeding) and ischemic stroke (loss of blood flow). . . .He was in the hospital for two months, through July 2014.” See Klayman v. Obama (D.D.C. No. 1:13-cv-00851), ECF 129 at 3. But see infra, May 16, 2014 entry and June 21, 2014 entry.
May 13, 2014
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors approves a $155,535 contract for an outside consultant to "assist" the MCSO and Arpaio in complying with the Melendres injunction. The contract at issue is with Howard Safir* of Vigilant Resources. See Jude Joffe-Block, County Supervisors Approve Arpaio’s Controversial Consultant Choice, KJZZ, May 13, 2014.
*Note: In December 2013, the MCSO submitted Safir's name to Judge Snow as a potential court monitor. In opposing his appointment, the Melendres Plaintiffs asserted that Safir "harbors a hostility to Court-ordered change in police agencies as a result of findings of misconduct," and that "Mr. Safir’s record as the chief executive of the New York Police Department from 1996 to 2000 also gives rise to serious concerns about his bias and predilections in cases involving racial profiling." See Dec. 12, 2013.
May 14, 2014
Judge Snow holds a status conference. See Minutes of Proceeding (ECF 692) (open portion of hearing); ECF 699 (closed portion); Transcript (ECF 694 (open portion); ECF 700 (closed portion)).
A portion of the hearing was initially sealed. The proceedings were sealed in an attempt to “aid the MCSO, and others, in the quick but low-key retrieval of any such recordings, devices, or materials that may be being used.” See Transcript of May 16, 2015 Hearing (ECF 715) at 7. As the Court later summarizes:
“The Court expressed the concern, which I think was joined by all parties, that if in fact there were some MCSO officers that had engaged -- engaging in stop behavior that was problematic like at least a few of the stops of Deputy Armendariz were, there would be some temptation, upon learning that those were being retrieved, to destroy them.
So in order to facilitate the collection and preservation of evidence, we were going to proceed under seal, the MCSO would formulate a plan quickly in conjunction with the monitor, would accept the monitor's advice and would reveal to the monitor if they were not going to accept his advice, and they would quickly execute such an operation, and that the investigation and operation would remain under seal pending the limited time that it took to undertake such an operation.
The hearing began at 10:00, lasted about noon, until about noon, the monitor arranged to meet with the MCSO at 2 o'clock, and during this meeting they formulated a plan in [8] which the Internal Affairs officers of the MCSO would meet, beginning with those deputies that they knew had MCSO-issued devices, to obtain individually the materials that they had, and then, as they became aware of other possible devices, would meet individually with such officers and secure the devices and recordings that were available. Id. at 7-8.
Things did not proceed per the Court's order. As later summarized by Judge Snow:
I will say, the Court will say that from my perspective, what happened next is the following. At 5:30, the monitor returned to my chambers to give me a report on the operation plan arrived at in conjunction with the MCSO. Just as he was entering my office he received a phone call from Chief Deputy Sheridan that had advised him that he had just become aware that while the monitor was in the meeting with Chief Deputy Sheridan and others at the MCSO, Chief Trombi had written an e-mail to certain supervisory personnel, to include 20 personnel, and among them was the supervisor in question who appeared in at least one of the recordings, advising them of the desire, on a departmental-wide basis, to recover all of the recordings that may have been made, and thus frustrating the plan that had been arrived at by Chief Deputy Sheridan and the monitor. (Transcript, ECF 715 at 8.)
* * * *
I want to also observe and recognize that it was MCSO that fully came forward, as far as I'm aware, with all of the material that they have found from Deputy Armendariz in the first place. And I do acknowledge that they have done so, and as far as I am presently aware, at least the material that was obtained from Deputy Armendariz has been fully provided and full disclosure has been made as to that to the best of MCSO's ability at the time they were making that disclosure. But in doing so, it did become apparent that there were significant recordings the MCSO knew of and had not previously disclosed, including dash cams, body cams, and audio recordings, and there was also reason to believe that there were unofficial recordings that the officers were -- deputies were making on their own that had not been previously disclosed.Further, again, I don't intend to rub MCSO's nose in this, but MCSO has already been sanctioned for the destruction of evidence in this case, and there have been a few issues of compliance with my initial order, although there have been, I believe, full attempts to correct some of that. [14] But in addition, whether inadvertent or otherwise, MCSO's actions frustrated the ability to implement the strategy for quietly and efficiently preserving from destruction any additional evidence that might be out there. Chief Deputy Sheridan does in his report suggest that he does not think it will make any difference, or significant difference. I'm certain that we all join him in hoping that that is correct. But it was the best plan that we could come up with, and he joined in saying that that was the best plan, and it's been frustrated, it seems to me, by activity by the MCSO, whether that was inadvertent or otherwise, and I'm not suggesting either way. (Id. at 13-14.)
May 15, 2014
Judge Snow issues an "Order Setting Hearing to Determine Why the Seal on this Matter Should Not be Lifted." See ECF 693 (PDF). (This order was initially filed under seal.)
Despite the title, the order addresses multiple issues arising from the fact that "The Court after the hearing became aware of facts that caused it certain concerns regarding the MCSO’s implementation of matters discussed at the hearing." Id. at 1. The order sets out in detail the steps the MCSO is required to take to investigate, among other things, the existence of additional MCSO personnel recording devices and videotapes (id. at 1-3) and to provide such information to the Court Monitor (id. at 3).
The order also provides that while this order - and the May 14 status conference - is sealed, the parties will discuss, "in light of the events subsequent to the May 14 hearing ... why the seal on this matter should not be lifted." Id. at 3.
May 16, 2014
Judge Snow holds another hearing after learning that MCSO Chief Deputy Sheridan did not comply with his May 14 order - and appeared to be less than truthful to the Court Monitor regarding same. See Minutes of Proceeding (ECF 705); Transcript (ECF 715).
For a summary of the proceedings in context, see Stephen Lemons, “A Deputy's Death Opens the Door Onto a World Corruption in Sheriff Joe's MCSO, Phoenix New Times, May 29, 2014; and Jude Joffe-Block, “Arpaio's Deputy Kept Stash Of Traffic Stop Videos At Home,” KJZZ, May 16, 2014.
During his Freedom Friday radio show, Carl Gallups briefly discusses the status of the Arpaio-Zullo investigations. PPSimmons, Zullo Blamed for Poor Attendance at Operation American Spring? Hear the LATEST on Investigation, YouTube, May 17, 2014. Gallups reiterates that he speaks to Zullo often – “almost every day” [~1:40], and that their discussions are lengthy. He reiterates that he has hope because he has inside information. He also reiterates that the promised conference is going to happen, and that “I happen to know how it’s going to unfold and who all’s involved” [~2:25]. He then promises that there’s a 99% chance it’s going to happen. He then says that he’s not a liberty to say what has delayed the news conference, but assures his listener that the reason is “good.” [~3:00].
According to a May 27, 2014 letter from Paul Chuwn Lim, MD, Medical Director of Swedish Rehabilitation Services, "Mr. Dennis Montgomery underwent aneurysm surgery on 5/16/2014 that was unfortunately complicated by multi-infarct strokes with resultant severe left sided weakness and impaired vision. He is currently on the Swedish inpatient rehab unit and will be here until at least late June 2014. He will not be able to testify out of state as a result of his current disability." See, e.g., Montgomery v. Risen, (S.D. Fla., No. 1:15-cv-20782), Amended Complaint [ECF 44] at Exhibit 9 (p. 173).
May 18, 2014
★ MCSO CI Payment to Montgomery. Brian Mackiewcz pays Montgomery $5,000.00 in cash, per Exhibit 2912 later admitted in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings.
May 23, 2014
Arpaio appears on FoxNews' Neal Cavuto show. See TheBirtherReportDotCom, Sheriff Joe Exposes Obama ID Fraud Cover-Up Live On Fox News, YouTube, May 14, 2014. During the interview, Cavuto asks Arpaio why he doesn't want to run for governor. Arpaio responds:
[~0:40] ARPAIO: The problem if I decide to run, I have to resign ... so ... I don't wanna give up the Sheriff's Office. I have too many things poppin', sensitive investigations, everybody's taking shots at me and my dedicated officers, so I'm not going to surrender so I will stay the Sheriff for at least seven more years.
* * * *
[2:00] ARPAIO: So I'm gonna do what I think is right for my organization and not surrender to the Department of Justice, and any other elements that've been trying to take me down for many years....
* * * *
Later in the interview, Arpaio again refers to his “sensitive investigations” and laments that the media seems uninterested in them:
[4:42] ARPAIO: I have a couple big sensitive investigations going on, that's one of the reasons I'm not leaving the office, but nobody seems to have an interest in my investigations.
Zullo appears on Carl Gallups’ Freedom Friday radio show. (Podcast link.) After noting that Arpaio could not be there due to a conflict with another show, Gallups and Zullo proceeded to discuss several matters, including...
The delayed news conference (layperson’s unofficial transcript):
[~3:06] ZULLO: Okay Carl. You know, I guess, Sheriff Arpaio had made a decision during a recent telephone interview that you know, maybe it was time that we let people know why the March date had elapsed and we did not come out like we anticipated. And the Sheriff made it pretty clear in this interview, and I believe it’s up on a lot of the major sites, that we are honing in on, we believe, the people responsible for the creation of that fraudulent document. Now back when you and I were on the phone and I was out of state conducting this investigation I had said that I believed we would do this in March. And we had every intention to do that. We believed we have the evidence that just destroys any kind of debate about this thing being authentic.
However, as time was going on… and you know because I kept calling you and I kept telling you, Carl, I don’t think this is gonna happen… a lot of more information began to unfold and it started to take us down a trail. And a lot of times over the last two years, Carl, you know this has been trails that go cold? This one isn’t. And the Sheriff has just made the decision he is not going to do anything until we finish this leg of this investigation. And that’s the reason why March didn’t happen. And that’s the reason why I can’t come on your show and give a date. Because this is still active, still going on and we’re pursuing it. And the Sheriff believes that this will be worth the wait if this comes to fruition. * * * *
The Xerox explanation and fallout thereof (layperson’s unofficial transcript):
[~6:15] ZULLO: Well that Xerox machine really could never answer one of the fundamental questions of the document. And I don’t want to get into what that is. But that is a smoke screen. And you know what? I’ll even share a little information. There is an NSA document that has been received by us that actually indicates, it teaches operatives how to use Xerox machines and the like to cleanse documents and erase metadata. So, I mean that tells you a lot right there about the Xerox machine. And you know I made it really easy for those people involved in sending out this information. Send me an affidavit. Tell me who you used to do this work. What their credentials are. And I’ll be more than happy to talk to them. You know I’m still kinda waiting for the affidavits. * * * *
How the "criminal investigation" grew from the birther investigation – and, specifically, the Xerox explanation (layperson’s unofficial transcript):
[~7:14] GALLUPS: And you and I have said this, so let’s go ahead and repeat this: It was through that jibber-jabber and that smoke screen (i.e., Xerox explanation), and your thorough investigation of it, with the people that helped you do it, that you guys were made privy to other information that has now opened up into a massive criminal investigation. So we’re kinda praising God for that jibberjabber that came our way, right?
[~7:37] ZULLO: Well, yeah, and I think when this is over, I plan to send each of those individuals a golden Xerox machine, and they can put it up on their mantle and know it was that reason – and that reason alone – that put us on our path.
[~7:50] GALLUPS: I’m telling you, it was a God-send. It was the goose that laid the golden egg. And of course, they had no idea they were doing that … * * * *
Whether the press conference regarding criminal investigation is going to happen at all (layperson’s unofficial transcript):
[~8:26] ZULLO: Yes, from our… absolutely! I mean this… you know, I can’t give you a date. I’m not gonna put myself in that box again. Obviously. But it is gonna happen. I mean the Sheriff wouldn’t make the statements he made. The Sheriff made it really clear, don’t be fooled by people telling you that he gave up. ‘Cause he didn’t. And we didn’t. And we’re continuing… I just can’t tell you, “Hey, we’re close. “ I can’t say that yet. * * * *
[~9:02] GALLUPS: … It’s going to be months rather than years, right? I mean, it’s going to happen relatively soon, provided that some other huge thing doesn’t come along that you have to bring forward, right?
ZULLO: Well, I’m not getting any younger, Carl. So it can’t go on too many years longer. * * * *
See also RC Radio Cold Case Posse Timeline - 2014 (May 24 entry; additional discussion and transcript of additional portions of interview).
May 24, 2014
Carl Gallups issues a recorded “update” to his Freedom Friday Show. Although the audio of this update has been scrubbed/removed from public access, Dr. Conspiracy provided a transcript of excerpts of the show and Sharon Rondeau published a summary of the show as well. See “Gallups turns on birthers: calls them ’whiners’," Obama Conspiracy Theories, May 24, 2014; Sharon Rondeau, “Carl Gallups Issues Update to ‘Freedom Friday’," Post & Email, as republished on PPSimmons, May 24, 2014; see also RC Radio Cold Case Posse Timeline - 2014 (May 24 entry; additional discussion of the show).
May 25, 2014
Sharon Rondeau publishes an article highlighting Arpaio’s recent statements to the press, referring both to his May 23 appearance on Neal Cavuto’s show and his May 10 appearance on Chris Pareja’s show. See Sharon Rondeau, “Is the Media Blackout on Obama’s Forged Birth Certificate Lifting?,” Post & Email, as republished by PPSimmons, May 25, 2014; see also supra, May 10 and May 23 for additional details.
May 28, 2014
Judge Snow issues an Order that parties will be provided with a copy of the Court Monitor's May 28, 2014 Review of MCSO's Investigative Plan. He specifically restricts MCSO access as follows: "The Defendants are authorized to discuss the report and its contents with Sheriff Arpaio, Chief Deputy Sheridan, Chief Trombi, Captain Farnsworth, and Captain Holmes, but may not otherwise discuss or characterize the report or its contents." See ECF 719 (PDF). Additionally, Judge Snow orders that
"Chief Warshaw and his team may take such steps and expend such resources as are reasonably necessary to monitor the MCSO's investigation into the Armendariz matters and into any MCSO investigation into previous recordings that may have been made by the agency during the time period relevant to this suit. Such steps are immediately authorized to ensure, to the extent of the Monitor’s authority, that the MCSO’s investigation is conducted pursuant to appropriate professional standards regarding investigations of alleged misconduct that have occurred within the investigating agency."
Id. at 2.
May 30, 2014
During his Freedom Friday radio show, Carl Gallups briefly discusses the status of the Arpaio-Zullo investigations. PPSimmons, Zullo Update - May 30/2014 - Gallups Answers Audience Questions, YouTube, June 1, 2014. He asserts that the information is “courtroom ready” and Zullo will announce it to the world “very very soon.” [0-0:45]
[0:50] GALLUPS: Sheriff Arpaio, because of the birth certificate investigation, Mike Zullo … was made privy to some information that was absolutely astounding, criminal activity that fell under the jurisdiction of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, and Sheriff Joe Arpaio; it goes all the way to the White House and places in between – and Sheriff Joe Arpaio jumped … on top of all of that, with investigators, an investigative team. And they’ve been on top of that for many many months, putting that all together, and so that conference is going to come. And then, very shortly after that, Mike Zullo’s conference will come. … * * * *
[1:32] As you heard Zullo say last week … and as a matter of fact Sheriff Arpaio said it first – he said it on Fox News just a few days ago, and then Mike Zullo confirmed it, that one of the reasons this conference didn’t happen when they originally targeted it – because, between the time they set the March date and then when March rolled around, they now were honing in on who did it; that they know the people responsible for putting that forged fake birth certificate together. … * * * *
Gallups also asserts [~2:35] that Zullo is in possession of NSA documents providing instructions on how to use Xerox machines to wipe out metadata, and how to produce anomalies on documents – “the very thing that some of the Obots were claiming that they had a Xerox machine that could produce the document that’s on the White House website.” Gallups notes …
[~3:24] And by the way, it was the Obot information about that Xerox machine that opened up tons of more leads and evidence - I have to be careful how I say this - and initiated the beginnings of the criminal investigation that Arpaio is now doing. So, hats off to the Obots. Bless you for that.
May-June 2014
Multiple reports about the Armendariz-related fallout are published in the weeks after May 8 in addition to those included above. See, e.g.,
- Jude Joffe-Block, “Arpaio's Deputy Kept Stash Of Traffic Stop Videos At Home, Fronteras, May 16, 2014
- Jude Joffe-Block, “Dead MCSO Deputy's Activities Spur Questions," Fronteras, May 20, 2014
- Jude Joffe-Block, “MCSO Chief May Have Undermined Investigation," Fronteras, May 22, 2014
- Jude Joffe-Block, "MCSO Deputy's Activities Could Impact Other Cases," KJZZ, May 27, 2014
- Erik Ortiz and Rich Dubek, “Deputy's Suicide Complicates Sheriff Joe Arpaio's Racial Profiling Case,” NBC News, June 2, 2014
- Stephen Lemons, “Joe Arpaio's Deputy Charley Armendariz Implicated MCSO "Command Staff," Says Activist Lydia Guzman,” Phoenix New Times, June 11, 2014;
- Jude Joffe-Block, “Activist: Dead MCSO Deputy Wanted To Be Whistleblower, Fronteras, June 12, 2014
- Morgan Loew, “MCSO Human Smuggling Unit under investigation,” CBS 5/KPHO, June 24, 2014.
June 1, 2014
★ MCSO CI Payment to Montgomery. Brian Mackiewcz pays Montgomery $5,000.00 in cash, per Exhibit 2911 (PDF) later admitted in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings.
June 2, 2014
During a status check in Dennis Montgomery's criminal case pending in Nevada, Montgomery's counsel “request[s] a continuance advising [Montgomery] had a stroke and was in the hospital. The Court continues the matter, setting another status check for Sept. 3, 2014 (though it does not occur until Sept. 10.) See State of Nevada vs Dennis Montgomery, No. C-10-268764-1, June 2, 2014 Minutes of Proceedings (Nev. Super. Ct. Clark Cty.).
June 4, 2014
Stephen Lemons reports on a MCSO "criminal investigation" involving a confidential informant and apparently related, at least in part, to an alleged DOJ-Judge Snow conspiracy against Arpaio. See Stephen Lemons, “Joe Arpaio's Investigating Federal Judge G. Murray Snow, DOJ, Sources Say, and Using a Seattle Scammer To Do It," Phoenix New Times, June 4, 2014.
Among other things, Lemons reports that, according to his sources:
- The two detectives assigned to the “criminal investigation” are Brian Mackiewicz and Travis Anglin. [1]
- Mackiewicz and Anglin became involved in October 2013 and are using, as a confidential informant, Dennis Montgomery from the Seattle, Washington area. [2]
- Montomery “has convinced the sheriff that he has information suggesting an anti-Arpaio conspiracy between Judge Snow and the DOJ.” [3]
- Arpaio is personally running the case, which has not been assigned any report number. [4]
- Mackiewicz and Anglin have spent a lot of time this year in the Seattle area with Montgomery. [1]
- The case is being financed by using confidential informant/RICO funds, and the MCSO has paid Montgomery about $100,000 to date. [5]
- “At least one underling told Arpaio recently that what Montgomery provided the MCSO is worthless, that Joe is getting played -- which caused the sheriff to erupt into a fit of anger.” [6]
Arpaio will confirm key aspects of this article during their civil contempt hearings in April 2015:
Notes: When Judge Snow questions Arpaio about this article during the Apr. 23, 2015 contempt evidentiary hearing. His answers were as follows:
[1] When asked, “Did you detail some of your personnel to conduct investigations that resulted in their frequent trips and stays in the Washington state area beginning in 2013 or 2014?,” Arpaio confirmed as follows: “We had a couple investigations -- investigators go up there, yes,” then identified the investigators as Mike Zullo and Brian Mackiewicz. See Apr. 23, 2015 Hearing Transcript [ECF 1027] at 644. Arpaio also confirmed that Mr. Anglin was assigned to go to Seattle “for a short period of time.” Id. at 655.
[2] When asked whether the confidential informant from Seattle named Dennis Montgomery that Zullo and the MCSO investigators were working with, Arpaio confirmed that as accurate. Id. at 645-56.
[3] Arpaio denied that the Seattle Operation included an investigation of Judge Snow:
[Court] Q. Did you ever -- you see that the article says that what Montgomery was actually doing was investigating me. You see that that's what the article says?
[Arpaio] A. It's not true.
Q. All right. Are you aware that I've ever been investigated by anyone?
A. You investigated?
Q. Yes.
A. No. No.
Q. Any of my activities?
A. No.
* * * *
Q. Okay. Let me ask, in his article Mr. Lemons indicates -- well, let me get -- let me get this clear. Your testimony is that Mr. Mackiewicz, Mr. Anglin, Mr. Zullo, never were involved in any investigation of the Department of Justice or of me, is that correct?
A. Not -- no, not of you.
Id. at 647, 648-49.
However, Arpaio/Sheridan attorneys will file papers alleging that Montgomery did "c[o]me to MCSO and provide[] information regarding Judge Snow." (See Melendres ECF 1158 at 10.) Additionally, per statements made by Judge Snow in May 2015, documents released during those proceedings will confirm the other aspects of Lemons' story -namely that the Seattle Operation involved, at least in part, looking into an alleged DOJ-Judge Snow conspiracy against Arpaio. See December 2013 - January 2014 (and beyond), for additional details.
See also Jan. 2, 2014 (witnesses recall a meeting with Arpaio, the subject of which was the Seattle Operation - including the alleged Snow-DOJ conspiracy).
[4] Arpaio denied he was conducting the investigation:
Q. … And so were you conducting this investigation?
A. No.
Q. Who was in your department?
A. This is Zullo and I think Mackiewicz.
Q. What rank does Mackiewicz have?
A. He's a detective.
Q. Who did he report to about this investigation?
A. I think he and Zullo worked together.
Q. And who did they report to?
A. And Jerry Sheridan.
Q. They reported to Deputy Chief Sheridan?
See Apr. 23, 2015 Hearing Transcript [ECF 1027] at 650.)
However,
- Zullo repeatedly state in public interviews that Arpaio was, in fact, leading the investigation. See, e.g., Nov. 22, 2013 ("Sheriff Arpaio has allocated resources from the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. ... He is fully invested in this ... And it wouldn't be happening if it wasn't for Sheriff Arpaio and his dedication, because the man knows in his gut that something's wrong. ... It's because of Sheriff Arpaio that this is even happening"); Dec. 13, 2013 ("At that point, when I was receiving it, we compiled it and we brought it to the attention of Sheriff Arpaio. At that time, that was tabled at the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office and a decision was made by Sheriff Arpaio to move forward ...I want people to really understand this. Sheriff Arpaio is the investigator. ... If it wasn't for Sheriff Arpaio, this wouldn't be happening")
- Travis Anglin testifies under oath that Mackiewicz was in Seattle the first part of 2014 because Arpaio "ordered" it. See Jan. 10, 2014.
- Anglin also testifies under oath that (a) he reported directly to Arpaio both before and after each trip to Seattle and if he didn't do so quickly enough, Arpaio called him; and (b) Arpaio and Zullo were close and talked frequently - often on a daily basis. See Oct. 9, 2015.
[5] Arpaio was unclear about funding, except to confirm that funds from Maricopa County were used for the MCSO detectives (but “we don’t pay for Zullo”) Id. at 645.
Bailey testified in his deposition that at some point, he went to Sheridan and he could no longer approve payments to Montgomery or travel expenses relating to Montgomery. Per Bailey, Montgomery continued to be paid and travel expenses incurred after he stopped approving them. See here for more details.
[6] Arpaio confirmed that it was “fair to say” that – as Lemons had reported – the MCSO became aware that the [informer] was giving it junk:
A. At one time, but let me just say that the information we're -- we've been getting is the informer's not very viable.
Q. Well, I understand that, I think the article itself says, that you became aware after a considerable amount of time that the reporter was giving you junk. Is that fair to say?
A. Yes.
Q. Or the informer was giving you junk?
A. Yes.
Id. at 650. See also Nov. 7, 2014 (email from Mackiewicz to Montgomery/Klayman that Montgomery's hard drives were full of junk and there were questions as to authenticity regarding some materials.
Birther debunker/blogger Dr. Conspiracy posts an article exploring possible connections between Dennis Montgomery and birthers - particularly Douglas Vogt. See "Vogt and Montgomery (the other one)," Obama Conspiracy Theories, June 5, 2014.
June 6, 2014
Carl Gallups responds to Stephen Lemons' June 5 article in response to a caller’s question during his Freedom Firday show. See PPSimmons, WE KNEW! Carl Gallups Takes Callers on Arpaio/Zullo Investigation!, YouTube, June 7, 2014. From the show (layperson’s unofficial transcript):
[~8:30] GALLUPS: Robert, thank you for listening to Freedom Friday. You have a question or comment about the Zullo/Arpaio investigation. Shoot.
[~8:37] ROBERT: Yes. I do. The Phoenix New Times is reporting that the universe shattering information is that Arpaio and Zullo are investigating a federal judge and Eric Holder. Is that true?
[~8:47] GALLUPS: Yeah. Well you know what? Thank you for asking that. To the best of my knowledge it’s not true. Now I can be proven wrong later if Arpaio comes out and says that that’s a part of his investigation. But the stuff that I know, that’s not part of it. But I’m really not at liberty at this point to say exactly what is or is not a part of that investigation. But let me say this about the Phoenix New Times. Uh. In my opinion they are a gossip rag. They are found for free at bus stations all over Phoenix, Arizona. I mean I’ve a lot of contacts inside of Phoenix, Arizona beyond Mike Zullo. A lot of people that I know from that area and I speak with them. And I ask them about this rag, and every one of them says, “Carl. Nobody pays attention to this.” This thing is pro-homosexual. It’s anti-American. They give it away. People, you know, you can’t hardly even give the thing away. Most of the reporting that I’ve ever seen that they’ve done has been absolutely, um, way off base, and totally, totally wrong. So I would guess, if I had to bet money on it, I would bet that what they are reporting is not true. But I can tell you, Bob, er, Robert that what is going to be announced, Zullo has described as universe shattering. And so what the Pensa… what the Phoenix New Times has reported is, you know, pretty… pretty profound if that’s a part of it, but that’s not the universe shattering information. Does that help you
[~10:09] ROBERT: Well it does except that, um, in the article Zullo didn’t deny anything. He just said “No Comment.”
📄 ZULLO DOC. Mackiewicz emails Zullo re: "Fwd: here is the attachment..." (ZULLO 003740). He attaches a document file-named "Konke victim supp 2.doc." (ZULLO 003741). This document is reflected in the "Fifth Amendment Privilege Log, which is later docketed in the Melendres 2015 proceedings as ECF 1507-6, filed in support of Plaintiffs’ Oct. 30, 2015 Opposition to Zullo's Oct. 26 Motion for Extension of Time (to find an attorney).
June 9, 2014
The MCSO files a notice with the court that
"Captain Steve Bailey has replaced Captain Ken Holmes as Internal Affairs Commander. Captain Holmes was identified in the Court’s May 28, 2014 Order (Dkt#719) as a person authorized to discuss the Monitor’s May 28, 2014 Review of MCSO’s Investigative Plan filed under seal. Defendants hereby provide notice to the Court of their intent to provide to Captain Bailey, Captain Holmes’ replacement, a copy of the Monitor’s May 28, 2014 Review of MCSO’s Investigative Plan."
See ECF 721. Captain Bailey's promotion to this position will cause serious concerns for the Court Monitor and Judge Snow, given that he previously was commander of the Special Investigations Division, which was the parent component that oversaw the Human Smuggling Unit (i.e., the unit in which Armendariz served). See Transcript of October 28, 2014 Hearing [ECF 776] at 12.
Addititonally, under standard protocols, Bailey would have been the person to approve payments to confidential informants (such as Dennis Montgomery). See, e.g., Transcript of April 23, 2015 Evidentiary Hearing [ECF 1021] at 642-43, 646, 656 (Court expressing his concern as to whether Bailey approved payments to Dennis Montgomery; Arpaio confirming that under standard protocol, Bailey would be the person to do so but stating he was unsure whether Bailey even knew about Montgomery.)
June 11, 2014
Birther debunker/blogger Dr. Conspiracy posts another article exploring possible connections between Dennis Montgomery and birthers - particularly WND and Jerome Corsi. See "The Corsi/WND/Arpaio/Zullo/Montgomery connection," Obama Conspiracy Theories, June 11, 2014.
June 19, 2014
The Melendres Court Monitor holds his first public meeting, in Phoenix, seeking feedback about the MCSO from the community. See Jude Joffe-Block, "Monitor Invites Public To Give Feedback On MCSO," KJZZ, June 20, 2014; Megan Cassidy, “Arpaio's court-ordered monitor seeks community feedback,” Arizona Republic, June 19, 2014.
★ MCSO CI Payment to Montgomery. Brian Mackiewcz pays Montgomery $5,000.00 in cash, per Exhibit 2910 later admitted in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings.
June 21, 2014
According to a January 6, 2015 letter from Paul Chuwn Lim, MD, Medical Director of Swedish Rehabilitation Services, Dennis Montgomery, who “recently” “sustained recent multi-infarct strokes with resultant severe left sided weakness and impaired vision,” completed his inpatient rehab on June 21, 2014. See, e.g., Montgomery v. Risen, (S.D. Fla., No. 1:15-cv-20782), Amended Complaint [ECF 44] at Exhibit 10 (p. 175).
Shortly after June 21, 2014
Montgomery flies to DC at the request of Mackiewicz and Zullo.*
📄 Montgomery will later complain to [Zullo?] that:
Regarding my commitment, at your and Brian Mickiewicz’s request, I got on a plane 4 weeks after my stroke and brain coiling against medical advice.
📄 And Mackiewicz will respond to Montgomery by saying that:"
From day one I thought we all had a common goal in mind when it came to this investigation. If your "STORY" was based on facts and the information you provided was all truthful Mike, I, and the Office was dedicated do anything in our powers LEGALLY to help bring your story forward and expose the TRUTH. I truly believe Mike, I, and the Office have lived up to out part of the deal. We have given you approximately 120,000 dollars plus in exchange for information. We brought you before the Arizona State Attorney General, we found you two different Attorneys, and we opened the door to a Federal Judge to give you as much protection as possible.
And to address one other issue that has seemed to come up more then once. If I remember correctly it was you choice to get on a plane and fly to Washington DC. Mike, I, or the Office was not aware you were advised by your Doctor not to travel UNTIL after you flew back to Seattle. I remember Mike and I specifically told when you after you informed us of that information you would have to provide a doctors letter before we would let you travel again. I also remember you getting so intoxicated at dinner while in Washington DC I had to tell the waiter to start serving you cocktails with no alcohol. Mike, I, or the Office would have never let you flight to Washington DC if we knew it was against your Doctors orders.
*Notes (updated Oct. 2015): It appears, from testimony given during the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings that Montgomery did not meet with Federal District Judge Lamberth on this trip but that he met with Judge Lamberth during a trip to DC in October.
June 29, 2014
📄 Dennis Montgomery emails "David Webb"* who in turn emails [email protected] (Zullo) regarding the Seattle Operation, according to documents later produced in the Melendres case and published on the docket. [ECF 1166 at 15.] Among other things, Montgomery claims:
"It is obvious that Anglin and his superiors have been trying to shut this project down since its inception. On one hand Anglin tells not to produce information on Judge SNOW. Then I am attacked for not producing information on Judge SNOW. Too many mixed signals from Anglin. This job is tough enough, but Anglin telling me not me not to share information with others until he gets the information was outrageous. Who was I supposed to trust?
Brian has to take orders from his superiors. Brian has never stop believing in me or the work. I can assure you Brian was getting the same mixed messages I was. But he must follow the orders of his superiors to survive in MCSO. He has taken a lot of time from his family, and for that I am sorry.
Anglin told by me that Sheridan didn’t want to go in front of Judge Snow and be accused of retaliating against the judge.
ANGLIN told me stop work on the BC day one, He told me never to trust Mike Zullo. I was told directly by Anglin not to pass information on to Mike Zullo.
I was not allowed to discuss with Mike zullo what I am being told to do or not to do.
I was setup to fail. To ensure I failed, Anglin or his superiors fed false information to the NEW PHOENIX TIMES. When that failed, I was hit with the SEATTLE WEEKLY news article. I had a stroke, and was in ICU when they article was released.
Anglin would not talk to Carl Cameron in front of me. He knew that promising to deliver data to FOX, and then not do it, would hurt me with FOX. He accomplished his goal. Anglin or his superiors then fed false information again to the New Phoenix Times to discredit the data, adding more doubt into Carl Cameron’s mind. Carl Cameron’s recent email says it all.
I worked hard to gain credibility with FOXNEWS. Anglin’s plan to destroy my credibility with FOXNEWS succeeded. Now there is doubt in FOXNEWS about the validity of my accusations I filed with the CIA and DOJ. I now have a much higher hurdle to overcome with them to regain my credibility.
I will bet you the next article in the New Phoenix Times will be on Brian, to hurt him and kill this project.
I had no chance to succeed. Obviously some people in MCSO wanted for political reasons to use my work to hurt the sheriff.
I can assure you that I have had only one goal since I began this work, and that was to get the work done!
*Note: "David Webb" is an alias used by Dennis Montgomery. See, e.g., Oct. 9, 2015 Melendres hearing Transcript at 2834 (Anglin testimony: "Q. And below that there's an e-mail from David Webb, which is Mr. Montgomery, correct? A. Yes, ma'am.")
📄 Seattle Operation Document: A 1-page document – Email from David Webb [Montgomery] to 1tick@earthlin[k].net [Zullo] -PROJECT dated 6/29/2014 – is later listed as potential Exhibit 2256 in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings. See Plaintiffs’ Oct. 12, 2015 List of Exhibits, ECF 1462-2. The contents of this document have not yet been made public, but it seems likely that this is the same email referenced/summarized above.
★ See also Arpaio's Oct. 2, 2015 testimony at 2371-2377 (generally discussing matters raised in Montgomery's email).
Before/Around July 2014
★ During a period in 2014 -- apparently mostly before July 2014 -- a group of 8-10 MCSO investigators contact a number of people identified on "a sample of about 40 or 50 names and bank account information from Mr. Montgomery's data" obtained by Mackiewicz. See Anglin's Oct. 9, 2015 testimony at 2873 (indicating that one supplemental report was dated July 1, 2014); id. at 2876 (8-10 investigators involved); id. at 2869 (sample size/source).
ANGLIN'S TESTIMONY:
According to Anglin, Mackiewicz was tasked to interview individuals included in the sample of Montgomery data:
Q. And you and Detective Mackiewicz tasked a number of investigators with interviewing those individuals that you could find to try to corroborate Mr. Montgomery's data, is that right?
A. Well, to be clear, Detective Mackiewicz was tasked with getting investigators to do that. I provided the investigators because I wasn't allowed to be part of the case any more.
And did you provide the investigators with specific questions to ask --
A. Detective Mackiewicz did.
Q. And those investigators returned reports of the results of their investigations, correct?
A. They did.
* * *
Q. Are you aware of whether the interviews have ever been completed?
A. I believe that of the names that were provided to us, at least most of them were contacted and interviewed. I think there may have been some that couldn't be located.
Q. And to your knowledge, was Judge Snow on the list of individuals that any of these investigators were tasked with calling up?
A. No, ma'am.
Q. Did you ever see any banking information associated with Judge Snow's name among any of the banking information provided to you by Mr. Montgomery?
A. I did not.
Anglin's Oct. 9, 2015 testimony at 2869, 2873; see also id. at 2868-2872 (discussing Exhibit 2900A (MELC185239-MELC185331) - which is apparently a compilation of reports generated by this process). See also id. at 2874-2877(testimony regarding this process during cross-examination).
SHERIDAN'S TESTIMONY
According to Sheridan's September 2015 testimony:
A. Like with the FISA Court judge; like with the -- we did send detectives out with information on the bank accounts to contact people that were still available, because his [1585] information was old. I think the latest information he had was from 2010. And so we sent detectives out to follow up on approximately -- please don't hold me to this number – but approximately 50 or so county residents to check up on their bank accounts: Is this your name? Is this your address? Is this your number? And about half of them came back valid. So he did provide us with some valid information.
Q. Name/address/bank account number?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I think your testimony was that he got the amount in the accounts wrong, right?
A. Well, it was difficult on the amounts, because amounts vary, and people don't remember how much they had in their bank account in 2008 and 2009. Some did, some -- but the bank account number and the name, people might remember --
Q. There were a few of them that --
A. -- or have record of that.
Q. -- few of them that were verified.
A. Yes, sir.
Sheridan's Sept. 29 Testimony at 1584-85.
ARPAIO'S TESTIMONY
According to Arpaio's October 2015 testimony:
Q. In fact, if your office is looking into a potential crime, it's pretty common to interview any potential victims that you can identify, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You had people within your office contact a large number of other people, aside from Judge Snow, to check to see whether the information that Mr. Montgomery provided was plausible, [2443] correct?
A. I don't remember -- you say other than Judge Snow? I don't -- I don't think we ever contacted the judge.
Q. Well, I'm not talking about Judge Snow at the moment; I'm talking about other people who are on this alleged list that Mr. Montgomery provided of the 150,000 people whose banking information had been taken.
Your office actually contacted other people who were allegedly on that list, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know approximately how many people were contacted by your office who were supposedly on that list?
A. I'm not sure, but I'm sure the chief deputy would know.
Q. Was more than 10, right?
A. Yes.
Q. More than 20?
A. I don't know. It could be 20, 30; I don't have the figure.
Q. The purpose for your office to contact those people was to say: Here's your name and an account, and maybe some other numbers. Does this look familiar to you? Have you suffered any identity theft? That was the general line of inquiry, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. But you did not contact Judge Snow to ask him those questions, correct? [2444]
A. I don't think so.
Q. Contacting Judge Snow to ask him those same questions that you asked all those other people might have helped you to determine whether in fact there had been a crime committed against Judge Snow, correct?
A. That and 150,000 others.
Q. Now, you don't actually know or remember the names of any of those other people who were contacted by your office to try to figure out whether there actually had been a crime, correct?
A. I don't -- I'm sure it's of record, but I don't have it.
Q. You can't think of any as you sit here today, correct?
A. No.
Q. Well, why didn't you have your people contact Judge Snow to interview him to see whether he had suffered from identity theft?
A. I don't know the answer to that. I believe the judge was in hearings with us. Quite frankly, I wouldn't know how to do it anyway, to approach the judge.
But we were trying to get a pattern of what was occurring, and we did talk to many other victims. We didn't talk to all the victims; that was impossible. But we did talk to certain victims. I don't know who they are, what their occupation was.
* * *
Q. So you looked at the fact that you were having hearings with Judge Snow and decided that was a reason not to contact Judge Snow with respect to what you believed to be a potential crime against Judge Snow, correct?
A. I'm saying that may have been a reason. I don't know. I wasn't really running the investigation. But I knew we had so many victims that we could approach to get a pattern of this investigation, so we went to 20, 30 possible victims.
Q. If you had told your people to contact Judge Snow to ask him whether he had suffered from identity theft or whether the information that you were told your people had about him was accurate, you could have done that, right?
A. I didn't think about it, about talking to the judge. It didn't enter my mind -- my mind. They went after and talked to other people. [2449]
Q. Did you think that Judge Snow would be upset if he had found out about the investigation that you were doing involving Mr. Montgomery?
A. Never entered my mind what the judge would feel.
Q. Well, in fact, you had no intention or plan of telling Judge Snow about the investigation, correct?
A. Which -- you're talking about the bank certificates?
Q. Yeah, the bank investigation in which he was a potential victim. You had no intention of ever disclosing that to him, is that right?
A. There may be a time that we would, but once again, I'm trying to confirm the information that we received from Montgomery through his computer system and see if it was reliable, and we started out talking to 20, 30 people.
Arpaio Oct. 2, 2015 testimony at 2442-44, 2448-49.
July-September 2014
MCSO RICO FUNDS: According to the First Quarter FY2015 RICO Report published by the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, MCSO received and spent $357,909 in State/Local RICO Funds between July 1 and September 30, 2014:
Professional/Outside Services: ................... $ 2,544
Travel:................................................................ $ 750
Other Operating Expenses:...................... $ 354,198
(OOE includes informant payments, per this)
Equipment:........................................................ $ 416
(Equipment includes computer purchases per this)
July 11, 2014
MCSO files a notice with the Melendres Court that "Lieutenant (promotion from Lieutenant to Captain to be effective as of July 21, 2014) Russ Skinner has replaced Captain Larry Farnsworth, referenced in paragraph 7(b) of the Court’s October 2, 2013 Supplemental Permanent Injunction/Judgment Order (Dkt.# 606), as Commander of the Court Compliance and Implementation Division." See ECF 727.
July 17, 2014
★ Seattle Operation Exhibit: A document – E-mail from Detective Brian Mackiewicz to Travis Anglin with an E-mail chain attached, subject line "CIA" dated 7/17/2014 (MELC198244-45) – is admitted into evidence in the 2015 Melendres contempt hearings as Exhibit 2099. See Oct. 9, 2015 Transcript (ECF 1466) at 2867. This email has not yet been made public; however, information revealed in hearing testimony to date indicates:
- This email chain includes an email from Carl Cameron, a political correspondent for Fox News (Anglin's Oct. 9, 2015 testimony at 2866), including that
- Cameron has been communicating with Montgomery. Id. at 2867.
- Cameron's email indicates that "Carl Cameron seemed to agree with [Anglin's] assessment about Dennis Montgomery. Id.
- The email chain also includes an email from Anglin saying, "I hope the sheriff sees this." Id. Per Anglin, what he meant by that was: "Carl Cameron seemed to agree with my assessment about Dennis Montgomery, and shared that with him, and so I was hoping that the sheriff would, in fact, see that somebody else feels the same way about Montgomery as I did." Id.
July 18, 2014
Judge Snow enters an Stipulated Protective Order, apparently to address materials relating to the Armendariz matter. See ECF 729.
During his Freedom Friday radio show, Carl Gallups briefly discusses the status of the Arpaio-Zullo investigations. See PPSimmons, “Carl Gallups Answers! "Anything NEW on Zullo?" - July 18/14,” YouTube, July 19, 2014.
In response to a caller’s question on any new information regarding the Zullo investigation, Gallups states that he just spoke to Zullo “yesterday and again this morning” Gallups reiterates that he is not official spokesperson for Zullo or Arpaio, but is Zullo’s friend and they talk almost daily and Gallups provides to Zullo/Arpaio as much media outlet for them as possible. He then provides the following updates (layperson's unofficial transcript):
About the MCSO investigation into “criminal activity connected to the White House”:
[~1:24] I did speak with him [Mike Zullo] yesterday and this morning and the very latest is: Remember, folks, there are two investigations going right now. One out of Sheriff Arpaio’s office itself – a criminal investigation into alleged criminal activity connected to the White House that is taking place under – or has taken place – or is taking place under the jurisdiction of Sheriff Arpaio. He has investigators assigned to that; he has announced that he is soon going to give a news conference revealing what it is that he has uncovered and what it is that he can bring to the public and bring to the media and … to Congress, federal law enforcement, whoever should have it. So Mike Zullo said that is still ongoing, it is still 100% legitimate and he would expect a news conference forthcoming, very soon. And that’s the only words he would use. He didn’t set any dates.
About the Arpaio-Zullo birth certificate investigation:
[~2:20] Now, as far as the birth certificate investigation, many of us – you know you and me JJ and Jeff and Mike Volin and many others – we’ve been following this for several years and, of course, Arpaio has been all over it as well, and this is important to Sheriff Arpaio because he’s the one that positioned Mike Zullo and commissioned him for that task. But Mike [Zullo] told me that all of that is still progressing forward and he too hopes to have a news conference forthcoming. However, he was sharing with me yesterday that in order to get to that point, that there are two huge legal hurdles that he must rectify – or not rectify but take care of – he’s gotta jump through the hoops. One of the legal hurdles is a legal procedure due to the nature of the information that he has discovered. It’s absolutely unbelievable, profound information and because of the nature of it – which I’m not allowed to disclose – there are a couple of procedural legal hurdles that he has to clear, he is required to – he has no other option or choice. But I want people to hear my words clearly; I’m not trying to parse words, there are no tricks involved, I’m speaking the absolute legal truth that one of the two legal hurdles is a procedural hurdle that he will have to clear in order to release the information that he has discovered. …
[~3:51] The second one is – and this just makes common sense – but it’s extremely important if you’re doing a criminal investigation of this nature and you’re going to release it to the media and to Congress and to federal law enforcement and to the world, the second hurdle is: the information sources that Zullo has, he has to – before he brings anything forward, everything has to be completely and totally vetted and verified. Now this process takes months, that’s why the March deadline passed, because the information came in was so profound and so much of it that before he could just sling it out there, he has to vet and to verify this information. So he’s in the process of doing all of that, and if it all comes together properly, then he will be able to soon come forward with everything he has, all of his information sources, affidavits, criminal … investigation material and information and bring it forward. So that’s where we are.
See also PPSimmons, Caller to Gallups: "Time for YOU to reveal Zullo info YOURSELF!" Gallups Responds!, YouTube, July 19, 2014 (during same July 18 Freedom Friday show, caller claims [~1:24] that he’s been “psychologically tortured by this entire three-ring circus fiasco of an investigation,” proposes that if Zullo doesn’t file charges by September 1, Gallups must agree to disclose the information he knows to the American people. Gallups declines to do so.)
July 20, 2014
★ MCSO CI Payment to Montgomery. Brian Mackiewcz pays Montgomery $2,500.00 in cash, per Exhibit 2908 later admitted in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings.
July 22, 2014
★ Seattle Operation Exhibit: A document – Email from Brian Mackiewicz to Sara Bagley re Investigative trips to Seattle dated 7/22/2014 – is admitted into evidence in the 2015 Melendres contempt hearings as Exhibit 2529. See Sept. 25, 2015 Transcript (ECF 1465) at 1322; see also see also Sheridan's Sept. 25, 2015 testimony regarding this document.
This document apparently reflects that Sheridan "gave verbal approval for a trip by Michael Zullo and Brian Mackiewicz" re: the Seattle Operation but, apparently, Mackiewicz requested approval in writing: "Since this trip is most likely going to turn up in an audit request we would like to have all approvals in writing." Id.
July 24, 2014
★ Arpaio is scheduled to meet with Mackiewicz today, according to one of Arpaio's Outlook calendar entries later included in Response to 7/22/2015 Monitor Document Request Related to ITR 25 (MELC662424-MELC1397042)). See Arpaio Oct. 2, 2015 testimony at 2377-2378.
★ Seattle Operation Exhibits: A 2-page document – Memo from Travis Anglin to Brian Mackiewicz re: Confidential Informant Payment dated 7/24/2014 (Exhibit 2909) is later admitted into evidence in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings. See Mackiewicz Oct. 28 testimony at 2723.
📄 Seattle Operation Document: Brian Mackiewicz submits a MCSO Memo to Sheridan requesting as follows:
"This memorandum is to request approval for Posse Member Michael Zullo to assist me in traveling with a confidential informant. This is in reference to an ongoing criminal investigation being conducted by the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. I am requesting all cost associated with this travel be paid by the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office."
See ECF 1507-8, filed in support of Plaintiffs’ Oct. 30, 2015 Opposition to Zullo's Oct. 26 Motion for Extension of Time (to find an attorney).
This document contains an Aug. 23, 2014 handwritten note by Sheridan, as follows: "M. Zullo is authorized for all travel expenses related to this investigation to be paid by the [MCSO]." Id.
July 27, 2014
📄 Seattle Operation Document: A document – "Cover" dated 7/27/2014 (P. Ex. 2925) – is later listed as potential Exhibit 2925 in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings. See Plaintiffs’ Oct. 12, 2015 List of Exhibits, ECF 1462-2. The contents of this document have not yet been made public, but it seems reasonable to speculate that this relates to Montgomery and the Seattle Operation.
July 31, 2014
📄 ZULLO DOC. Montgomery emails Zullo re: "FW: BREAKING NEWS-CIA admits improperly hacking Senate computers in search of Bush-era information." (ZULLO 003732). This document is reflected in the "Fifth Amendment Privilege Log, which is later docketed in the Melendres 2015 proceedings as ECF 1507-6, filed in support of Plaintiffs’ Oct. 30, 2015 Opposition to Zullo's Oct. 26 Motion for Extension of Time (to find an attorney).
August 2014
Former Chief Deputy Brian Sands releases Arpaio De Facto Lawman, a self-published book about Arpaio and the MCSO. See Stephen Lemons, “Joe Arpaio's Ex-Deputy Chief Brian Sands Dishes Dirt on Steven Seagal, Birthers, and More in Arpaio De Facto Lawman,” Phoenix New Times, Aug. 16, 2014; see also Ray Stern, “Joe Arpaio's Top Man, Jerry Sheridan, Described as a Bigot in Ex-Deputy's Book,” Phoenix New Times, Aug. 22, 2014; Morgan Loew, "Former MCSO chief dishes about Arpaio," KPHO/CBS 5, Sept. 11, 2014.
Aug. 1, 2014
★ According to the "Whistleblower Chronicles" later drafted by Dennis Montgomery, he, "Larry Klayman, and MCSO go to Washington D.C." See Exhibit 2919 (PDF) (Excerpt of PX 2082 - Document 3: "Whisleblower Chronicles" (CIA Chronicles)).
Note: But see here for Mackiewicz's testimony re: dates of meetings with Judge Lamberth.
★ MCSO CI Payment to Montgomery. Mackiewicz pays Montgomery $2,500.00 in cash, per Exhibit 2906 (PDF), later admitted in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings.
The Trustee in Dennis Montgomery’s bankruptcy proceedings files the “Chapter 7 Trustee's Final Account, Certification that the Estate has been Fully Administered and Application of Trustee to be Discharged.” See In re Dennis Lee Montgomery et al, No. 2:10-bk-18510-BB, ECF 247 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2014). In the “Closing Summary” to the “Trustee’s Supplement to the Final Account and Distribution,” the Trustee states (among other things) as follows:
"This case was initially pending in the Riverside Division as case number 6:09-24322 BB and reassigned to the Los Angeles Division. A cursory review of the schedules reveals real property assets valued at nearly $4,000,000 and personal property valued close to $50,000,000. The assets categories are broad and included intellectual property rights, expensive jewelry, claims against the United States Government, law firms, corporations and individuals. Certain of the purported intellectual property rights are subject to the National Security Act of 1947. The Trustee recognized this case would require an extensive investigation into the debtors' background and their assets.
The case was procedurally complex as the debtor claimed he did not have any of his business/financial records. He asserted they were turned over to various law firms in connection with litigation and proceedings to enforce judgments. The documents were subject to several protective orders issued by the United States District Court, District of Nevada which involves the Department of Justice. . . .
At the Meeting of Creditors, the debtors asserted their Fifth Amendment rights not to incriminate themselves in response to various questions.
The difficulties in obtaining information in this case caused the Trustee and his counsel many hours investigating and analyzing the value of various assets and determining the status of various litigation matters.
Several news sources provide additional background on Mr. Montgomery including but not limited to an article on Mr. Montgomery published in Playboy magazine and a segment on the morning T.V. show Good Morning Joe.
The investigation raised serious questions about the validity, viability and value of the debtors' assets and their credibility.
The Trustee obtained several extensions of the deadline to object to the debtors' discharge review of the documents in possession of other parties. Ultimately, the trustee determined it was not necessary to pursue an action under 11 U.S.C. §727 because creditor Michael J. Flynn was granted summary judgment on his § 727 action against the [Dennis Montgomery]. The claims against the co-debtor were dismissed.
* * *
Michael Flynn, a creditor who had obtained judgments against the Debtor under 11 U.S.C. Section 727 and 523 expressed an interest in purchasing the bankruptcy estate's interest in the remaining assets not claimed exempt, purchased by the Debtors, or previously abandoned by the Trustee for the purchase price of $20,000.00. The Trustee determined that such a transaction was in the best interest of the estate, and with assistance from counsel negotiated the terms of the sale. Order approving sale entered January 29, 2013.
Id. at 37-38. The bankruptcy case is closed on this date. See In re Dennis Lee Montgomery et al, No. 2:10-bk-18510-BB, ECF 248 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2014).
Aug. 7, 2014
Judge Snow holds a sealed telephone conference, apparently addressing several discovery disputes arising from the Armendariz-related investigation. See Minutes of Proceeding (ECF 731); Sealed Transcript (ECF 735). Shortly thereafter, he issues an Order requiring the MCSO to turn over multiple categories of materials relating to the Armendariz-related investigations. See ECF 732 (PDF).
Aug. 14, 2014
The Arizona Republic publishes an article revealing that
"The [MCSO] is on track to receive more than twice as many complaints this year as it did last year, and the upsurge, according to sheriff's officials, is exactly what they'd hoped for.
Through June 30, the sheriff's professional standards bureau had fielded 355 allegations of misconduct against deputies and other employees in 2014, compared with 311 in all of 2013, according to the agency's records."
Megan Cassidy, “MCSO sees big rise in complaints – just as it had hoped,” Arizona Republic, Aug. 14, 2014.
Aug. 15, 2014
★ MCSO Chief Deputy Sheridan approves Mackiewicz's request to approve payment of Zullo travel costs for "travel with confidential informant." See Exhibit 2961, later admitted into evidence in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings.
Aug. 22, 2014
📄 ZULLO DOC. Montgomery emails Zullo at 12:02 re: "FW: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE." (ZULLO 003717-20). This 3-page document is reflected in the "Fifth Amendment Privilege Log, which is later docketed in the Melendres 2015 proceedings as ECF 1507-6, filed in support of Plaintiffs’ Oct. 30, 2015 Opposition to Zullo's Oct. 26 Motion for Extension of Time (to find an attorney).
Aug. 24, 2014
📄 Seattle Operation Document: A 1-page document – Email from Brian Mackiewicz to Brian Mackiewicz Fwd: Timeline dated 8/24/2014 (P. Ex. 2719) – is later listed as potential Exhibit 2719 in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings. See Plaintiffs’ Oct. 12, 2015 List of Exhibits, ECF 1462-2. The contents of this document have not yet been made public, but it seems reasonable to speculate that this relates to Montgomery and the Seattle Operation.
Aug. 25, 2014
★ MCSO CI Payment to Montgomery. Brian Mackiewcz pays Montgomery $5,000.00 in cash, per Exhibit 2907 later admitted in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings.
Aug. 26, 2014
Judge Snow holds a hearing on the Melendres Plaintiffs' pending motion for attorney fees. See Minutes of Proceeding (ECF 738); Transcript (ECF 740).
Aug. 27, 2014
📄 Seattle Operation Document: A 26-page document – Email from Brian Mackiewicz to Brian Mackiewicz Fwd: Summary dated 8/27/2014 (MELC1287419 - MELC1287444) – is later listed as potential Exhibit 2720 in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings. See Plaintiffs’ Oct. 12, 2015 List of Exhibits, ECF 1462-2. The contents of these documents have not yet been made public, but it seems reasonable to speculate that this relates to Montgomery and the Seattle Operation.
Sometime in 2014, likely late Summer 2014
★ MCSO personnel meet with D.C. Senior Federal District Judge Royce Lamberth at least three times in 2014 -- apparently beginning in late August. See Mackiewicz's Oct. 29, 2015 testimony at 3787. Per Mackiewicz's testimony:
The First MCSO-Lamberth Meeting:
- This meeting was arranged by Larry Klayman. Id. at 3788.
- It occurred in late August or early September (id at 3787) and took place in Judge Lamberth's chambers (id. 3788).
- Attendees included Larry Klayman and his assistant Deana James, and Mike Zullo. Id. at 3787
- Mackiewicz described the purpose of this meeting as follows:
"Basically, Larry Klayman was trying to ask Judge Lamberth different questions on how he could get his client some kind of federal immunity for the claims that Dennis Montgomery was making as far as all his -- all the times he went to make the whistle-blower complaints to all the different agencies, and no one was taking a look at them, basically." Id.
- This meeting was a "very short" meeting. Id. at 3788.
The Second MCSO-Lamberth Meeting:
- This meeting occurred about two weeks after the first. Id. at 3789.
- Attendees included Dennis Montgomery, Larry Klayman, Dennis Montgomery's son-in-law [Istvan Burgyan?], Brian Mackiewicz and Mike Zullo. Id. (Per Mackiewicz, the son-in-law attended to help Montgomery, who was still recovering from stroke. Id.)
- The meeting lasted about two hours. Id. at 3790.
- Per Mackiewicz:
"Basically, at that meeting Dennis Montgomery laid out his history, laid out his story. The story was pretty much exactly the same that he told me on our first interview back in November, and then the free talk agreement that he did in December, and he pretty much went through his history and told [3790] the judge his history, and why he wanted to get some kind of federal immunity for all the whistle-blower stuff that he was trying to put forward." Id. at 3789-90.
- Per Mackiewicz, "basically the judge was -- played very neutral. Didn't really say one thing one way or the other." Id. at 3790.
- During this meeting Montgomery showed to Judge Lamberth information on the wiretaps (which, Montgomery alleged, were ordered by Snow). Id. at 3794. (See below for more details on this.)
The Third MCSO-Lamberth Meeting:
- The third meeting happened about two weeks after the second. Id. at 3790.
- Mackiewicz believes attendee included Mackiewicz, Zullo, Klayman and his assistant Deana James. Id.
- Per Mackiewizc:
"Larry Klayman was asking the judge basically what he thought our options were, and basically the judge was honest. He said: You know what? The way I see it, you have three options: Either you go to the FBI and ask for some kind of immunity; you go to the CIA; or you wait and see if you can get in front of, like, the Senate Intelligence Committee.
This was around the same time I think -- I believe 2014 was a voting year, so they were trying to figure out who was going to be in office, and that's the last meeting I was present for with the judge." Id. at 3791.
About the alleged Snow wiretaps. Judge Snow asked Mackiewicz about Judge Lamberth's reaction to Montgomery's wiretap information:
Q. And what did Judge Lamberth say about those numbers?
A. He didn't say anything. He just looked at them and gave Dennis the piece of paper back, that was it.
Q. And so if Chief Deputy Sheridan was under the impression, and testified in this court, that Judge Lamberth confirmed that those were wire -- those were similar to wiretap numbers used by the court [*], that wouldn't have been information he received from you?
A. You know, I could understand if --
Q. I'm just asking you to answer yes or no. Did you have any discussion with Chief Deputy Sheridan in which you indicated to him that Judge Lamberth confirmed that those were wire -- those were similar to wiretap numbers that were commonly used?
A. I don't believe that my words were "confirmed" that they were wiretap numbers, but therefore, they weren't dismissed, either. The conversation that I would have had with Chief Sheridan, I would have never said he absolutely confirmed that those were wiretap numbers, because Judge Lamberth never said that.
Q. Well, what did Judge Lamberth say and what did you ask Judge Lamberth?
A. Like I said, he didn't really say anything. He looked at the numbers, kind of, Oh, that's kind of interesting, and then gave the sheet back. He didn't really go into it, inquire. [3796] Again, I wasn't in a position to ask him: Are those real wiretap numbers? I didn't -- I didn't know what they meant.
Id. at 3795-96.
Note. This contradicts Sheridan's April 24, 2015 testimony (at 1002) that Lamberth "actually confirmed that these were typical wiretap numbers, and so it did give Mr. Montgomery a little more credibility with us."
★ For additional testimony re: the MCSO-Lamberth meetings, see Sheridan's Sept. 29 testimony at 1575-1579. See also Arpaio's Oct. 2 testimony at 2344-2347; Arpaio's Oct. 8 testimony at 2585-2587. See also here for Klayman's version of the second meeting (attended by Montgomery).
September 2014
★ Arpaio continues to receive verbal reports from Zullo and/or Mackiewicz regarding Montgomery's activities. See Arpaio Oct. 2, 2015 testimony at 2378-2379.
Sept. 4, 2014
Judge Snow issues an Order granting Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees and Non-Taxable Expenses. See ECF 742. See also Jude Joffe-Block, “Attorneys Awarded $4.4 Million For MCSO Racial Profiling Suit,” KJZZ, Sept. 11, 2014; David Schwartz, “Judge awards $4.4 million to lawyers in Arizona racial profiling case,” Reuters, Sept. 11, 2014.
Judge Snow also issues an order requiring Maricopa County to pay the Court Monitor Bill (with exceptions noted in order). See ECF 741 (PDF).
Zullo is in Washington DC for his “fifth visit … in his three year long investigation into President Barak Obama’s Birth Certificate. See Randy Foreman, “Arpaio Detective Meets With NewsBlaze,” NewsBlaze, Sept. 5, 2014. While at the Library of Congress, “Zullo confide[s] to Newsblaze about ongoing ‘talks with DC officials’ in high places in official Washington, who are moving the investigation forward.” Id. (emphasis in original).
★ Seattle Operation Exhibit: A 26-page document – Email from Brian Mackiewicz to [email protected] [Zullo] Re: Elmer’s [Montgomery] case summary dated 9/4/2014 is admitted into evidence in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings as Exhibit 2726. See Mackiewicz Oct. 27, 2015 testimony at [tbd].
Sept. 5, 2014
Mike Zullo appears on Carl Gallups’ Freedom Friday radio show to discuss the status of the Arpaio-Zullo investigations. See PPSimmons, "Mike Zullo Breaks Silence! On Freedom Friday With Carl Gallups (9-14),” YouTube, Sept. 6, 2014.
Gallups spends the first seven minutes of this show discussing today’s Randy Forman/NewsBlaze article regarding Zullo’s trip to Washington and defending the Arpaio-Zullo investigation and dismissing complaints that they are not moving quickly enough. He then takes a caller with questions regarding the investigations, and responds by telling his audience (again) that the investigation is ongoing and there will be conferences coming soon.
During the second segment [~11:30], Gallups welcomes Zullo to the show. Gallups then [~12:33] discusses the NewsBlaze article with him, noting that Zullo’s been to DC five times now and asked Zullo what he is doing there.
[~12:50] ZULLO: I apologize, I have to be a cryptic as I can. Randy was actually helping me do somethings that we’re not gonna discuss what those are. So he met me out here and we spent about four hours together doing a little research. …
[~13:19] But it is moving forward, my traveling schedule is hectic. I’ve been in DC more times than I care to be. And probably have a lot more time over here … But this is – it is moving forward and there are people involved now, as there were earlier, but even more so and a lot of things are predicated on schedules and that’s why it’s taking so long.
[~13:43] GALLUPS: … Scheduling and legalities, which you and I have talked about before. And when you start dealing with … high ranking officials in and around Washington DC, who are actually getting it … well now you have to work with legalities and schedules, and both of those are very difficult to bring together sometimes, aren’t they?
[~14:10] ZULLO: Well, and the legalities actually hamper the scheduling, because there’s research that needs to be done. … I apologize to your audience. I cannot disclose what we’re working on but I am going to tell you as painful as this wait has been, it’s gonna be well worth it. Well worth it – that’s the good side. What we’re gonna disclose is gonna be gut-wrenching.
* * * *
[~15:15] GALLUPS: … So what words would you give the nation right now?
[~15:19] ZULLO: What I can tell you as far as the forensic investigation on the birth certificate is concerned, we are using technology that the general public would have no idea even exists. And we’ve made some startling discoveries on that front. As far as the criminal side of it, it is extremely intense, it is in an area that we never thought it would go when we started way back in March. You and I had that discussion – I thought this was gonna be over – but it just went in a direction and kinda has a life of its own, and we have to pursue it. We have a legal obligation to pursue it. We have a legal obligation to bring it forward, but that can only be done under the right time and the right circumstances.
Zullo also states [~17:23] that the information will not be revealed before the November election because, given the state of the investigation, that would be impossible.
See also "Mike Zullo Breaks Silence! On Freedom Friday With Carl Gallups," PPSimmons, Sept. 6, 2014 (providing a written summary of the show). See also PPSimmons, BREAKING Sept. 2014 Lt. Mike Zullo Revelations and Updates!, YouTube, Sept. 5, 2014 (audio recording of Gallups reporting on and reading the Randy Foreman/NewsBlaze article).
Sept. 6, 2013?2014
📄 Seattle Operation Document: A 114-page document -- MCSO Special Investigation Division Interview with Confidential Informant #1437 dated 9/6/2013 -- is later listed as potential Exhibit 2926 in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings. See Plaintiffs’ Oct. 12, 2015 List of Exhibits, ECF 1462-2.
The contents of this document have not yet been made public, but it seems reasonable to speculate that this is a Seattle Operation-related document. If so, and assuming the 2013 date noted is correct and not a typo, this would be the first - or one of the first - documents created by MCSO relating to Dennis Montgomery and the Seattle Operation. However, it is quite possible that the 2013 was a typo, and this document is from September 2014.
Sept. 10, 2014
During a status check in Dennis Montgomery's criminal case pending in Nevada, the court is advised that Montgomery is out of the hospital from a recent stroke. Documentation presented to the court.” The Court continues the matter, setting another status check for Oct. 8, 2014. See State of Nevada vs Dennis Montgomery, No. C-10-268764-1, Sept. 10, 2014 Minutes of Proceedings (Nev. Super. Ct. Clark Cty.).
📄 Seattle Operation Document: A 1-page document – Email from David Webb [Montgomery] to [email protected] [Zullo] copying [email protected] [Mackiewicz] - Lanny Breuer dated 9/10/2014 – is later listed as potential Exhibit 2257 in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings. See Plaintiffs’ Oct. 12, 2015 List of Exhibits, ECF 1462-2. The contents of this document have not yet been made public, but it seems reasonable to speculate that this relates to Montgomery and the Seattle Operation.
Sept. 12, 2014
Lawrence Sellin appears on the Peter Boyles Show. See Peter Boyles Show - Sep 12, 2014 - Hr 4, 710KNUS News/Talk Radio (Podcast), Sept. 12, 2014.
Their discussion included the following matters (layperson’s unofficial transcript):
SELLIN: Let me preface that by saying… Mike Zullo is in charge of the Cold Case Posse investigation into Barack Obama’s… in particular the birth certificate but things around the birth certificate. And it’s basically a one man operation. Now I talked to Zullo a few weeks ago on the telephone and he indicated that Arpaio was gonna shut down the investigation last autumn but then this whistleblower walked into Arpaio’s office basically and had information about how the… now this is what I’m told, I’m not part of the investigation I should add… but what I’ve learned is that this whistleblower had information about, you know, how the birth certificate was produced, who… you know who might have done it, where it was done. And even pointed the finger towards CIA Director John Brennan. So…
BOYLES: By the way, Brennan is a Muslim.
SELLIN: Yeah, I’ve heard that too that a former FBI agent has said that Brennan is converted Muslim. That he converted while he was CIA station chief in Saudi Arabia.
BOYLES: Well, yeah, I mean if you saw the movie… and I thought it was fascinating… they did a blurb Zero Dark Thirty about killing Osama Bin Laden and he… and the guy comes in and they show this man in a suit putting out a prayer rug. That’s Brennan.
SELLIN: Yes. Yes. Well I think Brennan is a bad guy and I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s involved in this, all the shenanigans around Obama’s birth certificate. But this was… the information I believe that came from this whistleblower was the so called “universe shattering evidence” that Mike Zullo announced last November. Well, we still don’t know what that information is and as I understand it they’ve hit some snags around that and I’m not sure whether the snags are due to the whistleblower being reluctant to, you know , testify publicly or they’re afraid of the press smearing this whistleblower because it’s very likely that the whistleblower brought information that was taken perhaps from government computers and, you know what is the legal status of that? I, you know, I don’t know.
But what has transpired recently, as you know, Mike Zullo announced last Friday that the “universe shattering evidence” would not be released at least until after the election. Now this to me personally smelled of a, you know, a political decision. And I think what they’re doing now is trying to collect additional evidence, even circumstantial evidence. And I believe Zullo was in Washington DC to inves…
BOYLES: He was.
SELLIN: Yes, he was. About last week or the week before to investigate the Obama birth announcements, the microfilms to see if these were, you know, possible forgeries. Now I’ve seen at least some of the evidence around these microfilms. And I would think perhaps it’s suspicious but it’s not conclusive in my mind. So as I said I think they’re trying to buttress their case by additional evidence and perhaps that’s why it’s taking so long to get it together. I don’t know.
But and also he’s probably in Washington DC to talk to officials. Perhaps Republicans. But you know for the Republicans this is radioactive. Just like the impeachment talk. They don’t want to talk about it before the elections. So he was probably told that “Look. Nothing’s gonna happen before the election. We’re not gonna buy into this right now because it’s just too risky. We want to win back the Senate. And we’ll see after that.”
Now I’m not sure if that attitude is gonna change after the election but there we are.
BOYLES: I agree. Let me ask you as a final question. And first of all I appreciate you coming back on again. Will the time come… we’re both old guys… will this story ever break surface and… I don’t ever expect Brian Williams and the New York Times to do it. But there are so many people. I mean I used this… I have a friend who’s a congressperson who said to me one time over a lunch about a year, a year and a half, two years ago, who said, “Yeah. Everybody in DC knows the story’s not straight.”
And I went, “Damn! And you guys?”
But, of course, what I’ve learned is by simply bringing up people like yourself and others on the radio show and asking the question, I have been fully jacketed a racist on the Internet. I have been cartooned by the Denver Post. Columns written against me by the Denver Post about bringing up, quote, the truth about Barack Obama. And you know what? They quit doing that. They have ceased and desisted that. But they won’t deal with the question.
Will we see the time, Larry, when this breaks surface?
SELLIN: Yes. It’ll break surface eventually, just like Mike Zullo said. But the politicians and the media have too much to lose by, you know, pursuing this with any vigor. So they’re trying to run out the clock on Barack Obama. So I think, you know, it’s my opinion at this point because, you know, it’s… they call it a “law enforcement investigation.” Well it would be if there were arrests, prosecution, et cetera, and I don’t think that’ll happen. So it devolves into the realm of being political. And that’s much harder to put a case over because you need the Republicans and the media to join in with you and I don’t see that happening.
BOYLES: Neither do I.
SELLIN: What I would like to see… I think that the Cold Case Posse should release their information. Right now it’s a one man show.
BOYLES: I do too.
SELLIN: Why not get thousands of people? Not only doing additional investigation on whatever the “universe shattering evidence” is. But also get people like yourself and other radio personalities and perhaps TV personalities like the people in Canada.
BOYLES: The Canadians. We had them on, yeah…
SELLIN: To talk about this. So you get… if you release the information you get more investigators and get more people on the air talking about this information.
Sept. 14, 2014
📄 ZULLO DOC. Montgomery sends an email to Zullo, copying Mackiewicz at 17:00, re: "CIA." (ZULLO 003686) This document is reflected in the "Fifth Amendment Privilege Log, which is later docketed in the Melendres 2015 proceedings as ECF 1507-6, filed in support of Plaintiffs’ Oct. 30, 2015 Opposition to Zullo's Oct. 26 Motion for Extension of Time (to find an attorney).
Sept. 18, 2014
The Melendres Court Monitor issues his FIRST QUARTERLY REPORT. See ECF 744. The Monitor found that the MCSO was not yet in compliance with most of the provisions. From the Executive Summary (id. at 8-10):
- Although each member of the Court Compliance and Implementation Division appears committed and knowledgeable, it appears that agency policies are developed in a vacuum. ***
-
The Staff of the Court Compliance and Implementation Division appears to interact with personnel without the serious involvement of the chain of command. Obtaining information and feedback from field personnel is invaluable, but the chain of command needs to be involved in the process to insure buy in and accountability.
-
The process of conducting Internal Affairs investigations at the District level is unorganized, poorly trained to, and lacks sufficient oversight to catch tardy or inadequate investigations. During our recent site visit, some command personnel advised that they had never been trained in conducting internal affair investigations, yet they were required to do so. ***
- No Early Identification System policy has been created as yet. ***
-
MCSO has advised the Monitor that it has yet to send out a request for proposals for In-Car Video Recording. Moreover, while MCSO staff realizes the limited capabilities of standard police car mounted cameras, they have not sought out additional information about other options.
-
The collection of uniform traffic stop data consistent with the Order did not begin until April 1, 2014; therefore, any analysis of the data is incomplete at this time. However, the Order did not require MCSO to collect this data prior to this date.
-
The training of MCSO personnel is one of the most important aspects of the Court’s
Order. MCSO has been involved in an ongoing dialogue with the representatives of the
Plaintiff and Monitor to develop new policies and practices for training employees and
posse members. Significant progress has been made, despite the slow pace of the
process. -
On a positive note, in our observations of Communications/Dispatch functions we found that if the deputy fails to announce a reason for the stop, the dispatcher will quickly prompt them for a reason.
-
From our visits to the Districts we found that the majority of deputies and commanders are supportive of the changes being imposed by the Order and are looking forward to a more well trained and professional Department.
-
The unique identifier for each incident/stop required by Paragraph 55 has been operational since September 2013. With the addition of new data systems this identifier links information from several data systems and can be accessed easily. Of the 94 traffic stops reviewed for Paragraph 55, 93 included the identifier.
-
On July 20th, 2014, we were advised that the EIS Unit would be moved to the Human Resources Unit and that Internal Affairs was being renamed to Professional Standards. Both of these changes coincide with suggestions made during the site visit of June 2014.
From the conclusion (id. at 73-74):
The matter before us is a serious one. The backdrop is a national dialogue on the relationship between the police and their constituent communities. Questions of the commitment of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office to long-term, sustainable change are abundant. The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office is to be commended for their spirit of cooperation and their facilitation of our efforts.
* * * *
Notwithstanding the Court’s mandate that the Monitoring Team assume the community engagement responsibilities articulated in the Order, we find that the MCSO enjoys only a distant relationship with the communities it serves. The ethos of the organization does not appear to embrace the value of community collaboration or the requisite sensitivities to the plight of those whose lives have been impacted by the behaviors clearly described in the findings of the Court.
There has been, in our view, far too much attention given to what we call “technical compliance,” a numeric result, that perhaps in the eyes of the agency, is the attainment of a compliance level that might set aside an organizational need to persevere and sustain. Numeric results must be accompanied by concomitant cultural changes which together can serve as a basis for long-term changes. We are struck by the degree to which the current executives of the MCSO assign blame to high ranking personnel who are no longer with the agency, but who nonetheless served under the leadership of the incumbent Sheriff.
During these past six months, this has been exacerbated by the inappropriate comments of senior MCSO officials whose public statements about the Order needed to be addressed by the Court, culminating in a Court-ordered remedy that required internal training and dissemination of significant reading material.
Roles of supervisors have been found to be wanting. In some instances, senior deputies have been given charge of entire districts, especially in the evening hours, when mature, enlightened experience is necessary to meet the mission of the agency and the expectations of the community. Even questions posed to District Commanders about crime rates in their areas of responsibility have been met with bewildered explanations that clearly lack an understanding of the metrics essential to understanding outcomes of enforcement and preventive strategies.
The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, and the Sheriff in particular, cannot see this matter as a mere exercise; one with a beginning and an end. For there to be meaningful change, the implementation of the Court’s Order must be seen, and accepted, as a blueprint for change; a living document that with the passage of time, and the approval of the Court, can be adapted to changes in laws, generally accepted police practices, community input, and new enforcement challenges.
See also Megan Cassidy, “Monitor: MCSO lags in complying with reforms,” Arizona Republic, Sept. 25, 2014; “Report pans Arpaio office’s community relations,” Associated Press/KTAR, Sept. 20, 2014.
Sept. 19, 2014
Carl Gallups appears on the Peter Boyle Show. See PPSimmons, “Exclusive! ZULLO knows who made the BC! Peter Boyles/Carl Gallups,” YouTube, Sept. 19, 2014; see also Peter Boyles Show - Sep 19, 2014 - Hr 3, 710KNUS News/Talk Radio (Podcast), Sept. 19, 2014 (unofficial layperson's transcript):
[~14:29] GALLUPS: I talked to [Zullo] yesterday, for an hour ...
[~22:19 ]GALLUPS: This investigation has gone deeper, it has gone darker. I will use that word in that the stuff that they have uncovered Mike Zullo is now calling earth shattering, universe shattering. And so what happened was ... about this time last year, Mike Zullo called me and said, Carl, look - it looks like we're going to be able to make a March conference, an announcement. And, because ... their information was being wrapped up; it was being vetted; they were ready to come forward. But what happened ... this is why Zullo has not made any more announcements as to an exact date, because it kinda bit him a little bit.
Because he and Arpaio were both ready to go, March 2014. But they turned the corner to January and monumental information began to come in. Monumental information. And they had to research it. It was information that could not be ignored. It was huge. It was deep and dark. And so, once they started vetting it... they discovered that there was a lot of credibility to this and that the possibilities were staggering. I mean history making.
So they began to delve into this research. Now this information came in as a result of Zullo's birth certificate investigation, but what happened - some of the information spills over into possible criminal activity in Maricopa County coming straight from the White House.
Well then Joe Arpaio said wait just a daggone minute, and he opened up an entirely new investigation. So since the beginning of this year ... we now have two investigations going. One of them is a criminal investigation being conducted basically by Joe Arpaio and whoever he assigns to it regarding criminal activity in Maricopa County that seems to go directly to the White House.
[~24:13] And Joe Arpaio has talked about this a little bit, even in the mainstream media when questioned. But the birth certificate investigation and this is not really not really a birther case. The case is is this document a forgery, who did it, why was it done, why did the President feel compelled to present a fake birth certificate to the country. That's what this is about. So you've got these two investigations going. So as March closed in, they realized we're never gonna make this March date, because there's so much more traveling to do, people to talk to, more evidence to collect, and that.
* * * *
[26:38] GALLUPS: I've got some exclusive information ... that Mike Zullo gave me permission yesterday to share. ... When this investigation turned this humonguous corner, and I happen to know about 80% of what they know, so I mean, it's huge. And when it did, they realized that we're going to need some more months to vet this, to submit it to forensics, to do everything we need to do. Because here's the thing ... When they do come forward, they're only going to get one shot at this. ... If they fumble this ... it's over. And they know it. ...
[~27:25] GALLUPS: Here's what I can say. ... Talking with Mike Zullo yesterday, here's what I can say. It's still hot and heavy. It's still going strong. They *are* going to do conference. It *will* happen sooner rather than later. ... Mike Zullo has been to Washington the last several weeks. He's made five trips to Washington. He's tying up some loose ends and bringing it all together. [28:10] Arpaio has announced publicly that they're hot and heavy on the trail of who actually did this. ANd this is going to be some surprising, astounding information, when it's all released.
* * * *
[~31:58 ] GALLUPS: Zullo knows who made it [i.e., the allegedly forged birth certificate].
Sept. 20, 2014
📄 ZULLO DOC. Montgomery sends an email to Zullo at 17:02 re: "CIA CHRONICLES REV 1.0" (ZULLO 003679). He attaches to this email a PDF file-named "cia.chronicles.REV.1.pdf (ZULLO 003680-82 and/or ZULLO 003683-85). These documents are reflected in the "Fifth Amendment Privilege Log, which is later docketed in the Melendres 2015 proceedings as ECF 1507-6, filed in support of Plaintiffs’ Oct. 30, 2015 Opposition to Zullo's Oct. 26 Motion for Extension of Time (to find an attorney).
📄 ZULLO DOC. Montgomery sends an email to Zullo at 18:36 re: "DRAKE." (ZULLO 003696). He attaches to this email a PDF file-named "cia.chronicles.REV.2.pdf. These documents are reflected in the "Fifth Amendment Privilege Log, which is later docketed in the Melendres 2015 proceedings as ECF 1507-6, filed in support of Plaintiffs’ Oct. 30, 2015 Opposition to Zullo's Oct. 26 Motion for Extension of Time (to find an attorney).
Sept. 21, 2014
📄 ZULLO DOC. Montgomery emails Zullo at 19:12 re: "REV 3A." (ZULLO 003894). He attaches a pdf, "cia.chronicles.REV.3.a.pdf." (ZULLO 003895-003902). These documents are reflected in the "Fifth Amendment Privilege Log, which is later docketed in the Melendres 2015 proceedings as ECF 1507-6, filed in support of Plaintiffs’ Oct. 30, 2015 Opposition to Zullo's Oct. 26 Motion for Extension of Time (to find an attorney) .
★ Seattle Operation Exhibit: A 1-page document – Email from Brian Mackiewicz to Mike [Zullo] Re: Updated Rev 3A dated 9/21/2014 (MELC202277) is later admitted into evidence as Exhibit 2901 in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings. See Mackiewicz Oct. 28, 2015 testimony at tbd.
According to an eyewitness at the Oct. 28 hearing, Mackiewicz testified that this was an email he sent to Zullo, forwarding an email from David Webb (i.e., Montgomery), and saying (Mackiewicz to Zullo): "make sure timeline is accurate." Per Mackiwicz, Montgomery didn't provide what he'd promised. Zullo continued to stay in touch with Montgomery after September 2014. (Note: This information will be confirmed or clarified/corrected upon review of the transcript.)
📄 ZULLO DOC. Montgomery emails Zullo at 19:23 re: "UPDATED REV 3A." (ZULLO 003902). He attaches a pdf, "cia.chronicles.REV.3.a.pdf." (ZULLO 003903-09). These documents are reflected in the "Fifth Amendment Privilege Log, which is later docketed in the Melendres 2015 proceedings as ECF 1507-6, filed in support of Plaintiffs’ Oct. 30, 2015 Opposition to Zullo's Oct. 26 Motion for Extension of Time (to find an attorney).
Sometime After Sept. 21, 2014
★ Seattle Operation Exhibit. A document - "Excerpt of PX 2082 - Document 3: "Whistleblower Chronicles [rev. 4.47]" (CIA Chronicles)" - is later admitted into evidence as Exhibit 2919 in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings. See Mackiewicz Oct. 29, 2015 testimony at 3731.
Per Mackiewicz, this document was prepared by Montgomery - and revised by Montgomery several times. Id. at 3731-3732.
Note. While the date of the exhibit has not yet been revealed, it seems reasonable to assume that the document is dated sometime after the prior versions of this document, referenced on Sept. 20 and Sept. 21.
Sept. 22, 2014
Lawrence Sellin appears on the Peter Boyles show to discuss, among other things, the current status of the Arpaio-Zullo Cold Case Posse. See BirtherReportDotCom, “Flak: Sheriff Arpaio's Obama Investigation Under Fire; Birther Report Dragged In The Middle,” YouTube, Sept. 22, 2014; see also Peter Boyles Show - Sep 22, 2014 - Hr 2, 710KNUS News/Talk Radio (Podcast), Sept. 22, 2014.
Relevant excerpts include (layperson’s unofficial transcript):
[~4:05] SELLIN: … There are two lines of investigation. The first line comes out of the birth certificate – the original birth certificate investigation, which they – a large amount of the information they looked at was already by people out there who have been investigation, many of whom you’ve had on your program. And they had two press conferences a couple years ago … nothing came out of it in terms of indictments, arrests, or prosecutions.
[~4:40] And then it continued, and it [the birth certificate investigation] was ready to be dropped last fall when allegedly a whistleblower came around and started giving them information about – that a … it might have been produced by government facilities on government computers and that John Brennan, the CIA Director, may have been supervising this.
[~5:03] Now the second line of investigation … really has little or nothing to do with birtherism. I believe it came out of the information that they got from a whistleblower, and it deals more with penetration of the Sheriff’s office in Maricopa County and Arizona and that there’s six or more crimes involved and this is why they call it a criminal investigation and it has to do with as I understand it the Department of Justice, at least one other federal agency – and it may be connected back to the White House. So again, this has little or nothing to do with Birtherism, but it is a potential crime and they’re investigating it. Now whether this rises to the level of the IRS scandal or the Benghazi scandal, I think we’ll have to wait and see.
* * * *
[~9:53] BOYLES: [Referring to the Arpaio-Zullo Cold Case Posse investigation] There was two lines of investigation – an extension of the original birth certificate investigation, which is, I believe, a forgery and one of the things that Gallups said … was that he could name that person. …
[~10:27] SELLIN: The information I got, which Gallups didn’t reveal, was that it’s connected back to the federal government ….
* * * *
[~12:04] BOYLES: Do you believe that Arpaio and Zullo know the exact person or persons who created the birth certificate?
SELLIN: … I can only say they may know. .. I think … if the information they got from this alleged whistleblower points back to the federal government and use of government facilities and computers, then they may know. Or they may just know who’s generally involved. But again, they’ve been very cryptic. Well, Arpaio actually has said nothing. And you can see the difference between … Arpaio has his own spokesperson… yet separately we have this Cold Case Posse investigation where we have this you know defacto spokesperson in Florida, a pastor with a radio program, and so .. as I said: Mike Zullo is not a law enforcement officer. He can’t do anything. Ir’s gonna have to be passed along to Arpaio if there’s gonna be any indictments, arrests, or prosecutions… So I think they’re deliberately keeping these two things separate, you know, Arpaio’s office and the Cold Case Posse office.
[~13:28] BOYLES: This notion that we had been promised now for a year and a half, this universe shattering information, and again, this is the boy who cried wolf, and this is what I said to Gallups …
Sept. 23, 2014
Carl Gallups appears again on the Peter Boyles Show, along with Lawrence Sellin, to discuss the Arpaio-Zullo investigations. See Peter Boyles Show - Sep 23, 2014 - Hr 3 and Peter Boyles Show -Sep 23, 2014 - Hr 4, 710KNUS News/Talk Radio (Podcast), Sept. 23, 2014.
Both Gallups and Sellin are present during "Hour 3" of the show. During this segment, Gallups asserts that Sheriff Arpaio has confirmed that Zullo has law enforcement authority (from an unofficial layperson's transcript:
[~3:45] GALLUPS. I have interviewed Joe Arpaio personally on my radio program, Freedom Friday with Carl Gallups, and I asked Joe Arpaio the same question you asked, Lawrence. I asked him. I said, “Is Mike Zullo a bona fide law enforcement officer with authority and powers as a law enforcement officer from your department?” And he said, “Absolutely.”* And then he went into a lengthy description. So you know I gotta tell ya, Lawrence, you… you… you know either you know these things or you don’t. If you don’t then all you’re doing is speculating.
*Note: We are searching for the referenced broadcast, but have not yet found it. If you know where it is, please let us know by posting a comment. Thanks.
Gallups also asserts that Zullo confided in him, in part, "as a simple matter of protection" in the event that "something happens to Zullo or Arpaio in this whole situation":
[~13:12] GALLUPS: I told you the entire story of my relationship with Mike Zullo. It first started out, as I was a simply a media output source of information for him. Then we developed a relationship talking a lot off air. Then he understood of my previous law enforcement background as a deputy sheriff I was a uniformed patrol officer and doing criminal investigations. He understood my background as a 30 year pastor in one church, my ability to keep confidentiality. He developed a trust. We went to Washington together. We went in and out of congressman’s offices together on Capitol Hill. Then he developed that trust and he wanted to share this information with me to keep me abreast. Also he has said publicly, and I have said publicly that he also is using me as a simple matter of protection because not only is there an inner circle of law enforcement that knows all of this and what to do if something happens to Zullo or Arpaio in this whole situation but he also wanted another source outside of the circle. And because of his trust over years he chose to use me in that regard. I make no apologies for it. I didn’t ask for it. I don’t want this position. But he asked, uh, if I would.
Sellin and call-in guest Brian Reilly are on the show for "Hour 4." Brian Reilly is a former Cold Case Posse member as he explains during this segment (unofficial transcript):
MR. REILLY: *** To give you a little idea who I am, I was a -- I am a former Cold Case Posse member. I am a -- I was a -- I am a former board member of the Surprise Tea Party and the Sun City West Tea Party, and I'm the individual that developed the plan and requested Sheriff Arpaio investigate the Obama birth certificate as placed on the internet by the White House as a PDF, and we requested that Sheriff Arpaio investigate, the 18th, and on August 22 I met with Arpaio by myself and had the discussion and he informed me that the -- the investigation was going to be turned over to the Cold Case Posse.
Reilly challenges Gallups' contention that Zullo is "law enforcement":
MR. REILLY: **** You must -- you must -- you must understand. The Cold Case Posse is a nonprofit Arizona corporation. It's one of about 50 different posses that the sheriff has established. These posses are strictly in support for law enforcement. They are not law enforcement. I've gone through the training process. I know what I was told. I know what I was trained, and basically as a posse member, interestingly enough you're given a badge, sometimes you're given a car, but the fact of the matter is if you display that badge, that posse badge, in a way that implies that you are law enforcement in the state of Arizona you can be prosecuted for impersonating a law enforcement officer. Okay?
So this information coming out that Mr. Zullo is a police officer or he has law enforcement authority is absolutely incorrect. When he gave the March 1, 2012 press conference he was a volunteer. When he gave the July 17 press conference, he was a volunteer, unpaid volunteer. No law enforcement authority. * * * *
MR. BOYLES: And again, I'm going to go slow, because the audience will catch with us. Colonel, did you know that Zullo wasn't a cop?
COL SELLIN: Yes, I pretty much knew what Brian has just been talking about. * * * *
Mr. Reilly also asserts that the Cold Case Posse birther investigation is all about "publicity and money':
MR. BOYLES: If they had the October Surprise, as it's called, that they could drop, why wait 'til after the election?
COL SELLIN: Well, I -- the impression I get is that it's political, that the Republicans are saying, well, you know, this is as radioactive as let's talk about impeachment. Let's do something and, you know, wait 'til after the election. Now, you know, they claim it's a law enforcement investigation and it's not -- the politics is not involved, but I can tell you this one thing: I found out in August that this release of this information was going to be delayed, you know, at least until after the election and the impression I got about this was, you know, that they didn't want this known. I mean, eventually it was released two weeks later.
MR. BOYLES: Why?
COL SELLIN: Well, I think it gets -- you know, people will ask the same questions about credibility and, you know, and is this playing politics. So, you know, I think that's a natural response.
MR. BOYLES: Brian, your thoughts?
MR. REILLY: This is all about publicity and money.
MR. BOYLES: Thank you.
MR. REILLY: That's what it's all about. Publicity and money. The evidence that was presented on March 1 and July 17, 2012, has been totally debunked and discredited. * * * *
MR. REILLY: * * * * Now as far as credibility, let's talk about credibility for a second. I heard on the radio broadcast before I called in that somebody had confirmed that Zullo was actually a law enforcement officer, and this confirmation came through Sheriff Arpaio. Now I don't know who got that information, but that's what I heard on the report. Let me give you some information.
On September 20, this past Saturday, there was a meeting of the Kaufman County Tea Party. Sheriff Arpaio was there to help raise funds for that particular tea party. The question came up -- the question came up how much money have you made off of the birth certificate investigation for your campaign? His response was he hasn't made a penny in donations, and he was actually pretty angry when he answered the question.
Now fast forward to something else. For the past 10 years, a film documentary about Arpaio has been done by Randy Murray Productions, and he's come out with a film called The Joe Show.
MR. BOYLES: Yeah, I know that film. I know that film.
MR. REILLY: Sheriff Arpaio gave Randy Murray Productions complete access to he, his department, Lisa Allen, the whole thing, and there is a -- there is a segment in that film that is just mindboggling. Randy Murray was allowed to --
MR. BOYLES: Is that the pick out -- the moment when he picks out the birther?
MR. REILLY: Yeah, but more -- more importantly, though, I mean, Lisa Allen refers to Arpaio as a clown, shows -- shows the cartoon on the laptop. The most important part, though, other than the clown part, is that Arpaio defends himself by saying essentially you won't know what to do with all the contributions that we get, all the donations that we get, and then later Randy Murray quotes the campaign director for Arpaio saying that it's brought in millions.
MR. BOYLES: Yeah, 8.5 million, right?
MR. REILLY: It was 8.4 million, according to county -- or state records, election records; 8.4 -- how much of that was birther generated? Probably an awful lot. A lot of that was -- a lot of that was generated with immigration situations, too. It's hard to break -- break it out. But the fact of the matter is, Mr. -- Sheriff Arpaio made a lot more than a penny, and what I'm talking about here is credibility. * * * *
MR. REILLY: You know, he's as much an enigma to me in many ways as he is to the public. He's not what he appears, and basically with me he doesn't have a lot of credibility. You know, with the public he may have credibility, but I worked with him on the inside, and in my estimation and my opinion, the credibility is not there, as evidenced by the three years that this has gone on and the millions of dollars that have been raised for the campaigns for Arpaio, and when I was with the posse, we were averaging about $10,000 a week. I mean, in June -- in June of 2012, Zullo told me that they had raised $80,000 in donations. I was one of -- my wife and I were among the first seven people to donate, okay?
And none of that money is accountable to anybody. Nobody knows how many dollars have come in in the last three years to the Cold Case Posse. Nobody knows how many -- what the revenue is, what the expenditures have been. There's no accountability to the sheriff's office, the county, or the IRS.
MR. BOYLES: That's damning. That's damning.
MR. REILLY: Yeah.
Birther debunker/blogger Dr. Conspiracy summarizes the recent klerfuffle between Zullo/Gallups and others. See "Zullo huffs and bluffs," Obama Conspiracy Theories, Sep. 26, 2013.
Sept. 24, 2014
The Melendres Court Monitor and Chief Deputy Gerald Sheridan attend a a community meeting in Guadalupe. See Ashley Cusik, “MCSO Monitor, Chief Deputy Met by Angry Crowd in Guadalupe,” Phoenix New Times, Sept. 25, 2014; and Jude Joffe-Block, “Guadalupe Mayor Asks For Apology From MCSO,” Fronteras, Sept. 25, 2014.
"Arpaio brag[s] about looking into the judge's wife [i.e., Judge Snow's wife]," during a lunch with Phoenix Attorney Jack Wilenchik at an Italian restaurant in Phoenix, according to Wilenchik, as later reported by the Arizona Republic. See Jacques Billeaud (AP), "Sheriff Arpaio trial to examine retaliation charges," Arizona Republic, July 6, 2015. "'[Arpaio] was essentially bragging and claiming he was investigating her for something she said,' Wilenchik said." Id.
Sept. 28, 2014
Melendres Court Monitor Warshaw issues memo to Court re: “Update and Assessment of MCSO's Armendariz and Related Investigations.” This is later published on the docket in redacted form. See ECF 795-1. From the Executive Summary:
A voluntary, self-survey instrument was hastily designed and deployed in response to the requirements of the Court Order. This self-survey instrument was not provided careful developmental attention and as a result was designed in what the Monitoring Team considers to be a flawed manner. The instrument failed to adequately and completely address the needs as expressed in the Court Order to obtain specific information. Additionally, the instrument was designed as a "voluntary" instrument that also led to delayed responses, incomplete responses, and no response at all from members of the MCSO. As a result of the use of this instrument, data received has been inconsistent and incomplete and remains so to this date.
MCSO failed to recognize the complexities of the Armendariz suicide investigation from its initiation. The pursuit of this investigation by the MCSO has uncovered severe deficiencies in several areas of MCSO operations. Flaws have been identified in critical areas such as investigatory training and instrument techniques. Poor interrogation skills were observed during the administrative and criminal interviews conducted in response to allegations made by Deputy Cisco Perez, who had been terminated. The lack of a properly prepared investigative plan prior to initiating the interview process highlighted the lack of training and established protocols for investigators assigned to the Professional Standards Bureau.
Also revealed were weaknesses in the evidence collection and cataloging mechanisms employed by the department. As a result, witnesses were subject to secondary interviews and the cataloging of evidence has remained in constant turmoil. This turmoil has caused extensive investigatory delays in attempts to correlate multiple items of seized evidence with individuals, property and audio and/or video recordings.
Video reviews have been conducted without a standardized review process and are subject to personal views and bias. This lack of standardized process has exacerbated problems with the cataloging of evidence that was seized from the Armendariz residence, as well as the documentation of the individual reviews themselves.
The established chronology of the MCSO tenure of Deputy Armendariz highlighted problems in the performance review and appraisal process for MCSO personnel. Lacking were supervisor reviews that included developmental programs and documentation, and the follow through with progressive discipline. His career has provided insight into institutional problems with the receipt and logging of citizen complaints, the initiation and investigation of internal investigations, and the cataloging of PSB proceedings. Also of concern is the lack of a viable and consistently utilized disciplinary system department wide.
Id. at 2. See also Jude Joffe-Block, Monitor's Report Criticizes Sheriff’s Internal Investigation, KJZZ, Oct. 31, 2014.
Sometime in Fall 2014
At some point, currently speculated to have occurred in late summer/early fall of 2014, Zullo and/or Mackiewicz drive the hard drives they received from Montgomery (see April ? 2014) to Washington DC.
★ Arpaio testifies about this matter in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings as follows:
Q. So did you have Detective Mackiewicz bring those 50 hard drives from the Seattle area to Washington, D.C. at some point, or at least copies of those hard drives?
A. Well, I didn't tell them what to do. I'm going to reiterate that they were running the investigation, I didn't know much about computers, and they would run it by me. I agreed with their assessment, and they continued on.
Q. You knew they were taking those hard drives to Washington, D.C., correct?
A. Yes, but I didn't order them to take it anywhere, as it was their recommenda- -- recommendation, and I knew that they knew what they were doing, so I never objected. But that was their suggestion. [2333]
Q. And you approved of their doing that, is that right?
A. Well, indirectly I approve. I didn't unapprove, so I was relying on their expertise.
Q. And the purpose of taking those hard drives to Washington, D.C. was to have some former National Security Agency employees look at it sometime in the fall of 2013*, is that right?
Note. It appears that Young meant to say fall of 2014 - see below where he refers "year earlier into the fall of 2013, that's the first time you heard that those hard drives existed..."
A. I believe so.
Q. You knew that at the time that was happening?
A. I knew that they were going to meet with these people.
Q. Now, and then you knew that they brought those hard drives back from Washington to Phoenix, correct, after that review by the former NSA people?
A. I believe they did.
Q. And you knew that at the time that was happening?
A. I'm not sure what the time was, but I believe they may have brought it back.
Q. Well, you knew that those hard drives were in Phoenix at your offices.
A. I believe so.
Arpaio's Oct. 2, 2015 testimony at 2332-2333.
October 2014
★ Arpaio continues to receive reports from Zullo and Mackiewicz regarding Montgomery's activities. See Arpaio Oct. 2, 2015 testimony at 2379.
According to Klayman, in October 2014 (“I do not have the exact date”), he and Montgomery meet with Judge Royce Lamberth (Federal D.C. District Court Judge) in the judge’s chambers. Montgomery v. Risen ECF 110 (Aug. 21 Hearing Transcript, as attached to ECF 111) at 14. According to Klayman, at this meeting,
“We asked [Judge Lamberth] for his assistance on how we could come forward with that information because we thought it should be in the government's hands being that it is highly sensitive, that it is classified and even he was not able to look at it.”
Id. at 15. Per Klayman:
“[Montgomery] is an expert on encryption who previously was employed by companies that provided decryption technology for U.S. intelligence agencies such as the National Security Agency (“NSA”) and the Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”) to decipher coded messages by Osama Bin Laden and other terrorist groups through broadcasts made on Al-Jazeera television. . . .
In his capacity as an expert working with the NSA, CIA, and Defense Intelligence Agency (“DIA”) Plaintiff was granted a Special Access Programs (“SAP”) security clearance and thus was able to view and access and retain classified information. During the course of his work for the NSA, CIA, and other intelligence agencies, Plaintiff saw evidence of illegal and unconstitutional surveillance on the American people and felt a moral obligation, despite his severe disabilities including a potentially fatal brain aneurism, to become a whistleblower in order to shed light on, expose, and remedy the unconstitutional actions of the intelligence agencies. Plaintiff came forward and began his work as a whistleblower before this lawsuit had originated and has been in the process of coming forward with his information for over a year (as of Sept. 2015) . . .”
See Montgomery v. Risen ECF 125 at 1-2. According to Klayman, he approached Judge Lamberth “because I know that judge and I have had cases in front of that judge. I know him to be an extremely reputable and honest person with great integrity.” Montgomery v. Risen ECF 110. Klayman asserts that he approached Judge Lamberth “and said how could we get this information to the government because Mr. Montgomery is a whistleblower and no one has wanted to listen to him so far.” Id.
Note. But see "Shortly after June 21, 2014" for information indicating that Montgomery may have met with Lamberth in late June 2014.
Sometime in fall of 2014, after Zullo and Mackiewicz have already met with former FISA court Judge Royce Lamberth, Montgomery, Zullo, and Mackiewicz meet with the Judge. See, e.g., Lambert Meetings.
-- details under construction --
★ See also Sheridan's Sept. 29 testimony at 1575-1579 and 1585-1588; Arpaio's Oct. 2 testimony at 2344-2347; Arpaio's Oct. 8 testimony at 2585-2587.
After the (Alleged) October 2014 Meeting with Judge Lamberth
According to Klayman, as a result of his October 2014 meeting with Judge Lamberth,
“[Judge Lambert] arranged because we needed to get this to the highest levels of the FBI and also to the highest levels potentially, of the Justice Department, this information . . . for meetings with the general counsel of the FBI, James Baker, who then facilitated bringing in agents, FBI agents, to acquire this information to collect it and that's how it occurred.”
Montgomery v. Risen ECF 110 (Aug. 21 Hearing Transcript as attached to ECF 111) at 15-16.
‘[W]ell what unfolded, we had the meetings. And the general counsel of the FBI James Baker, who works directly under the director James Comey, facilitated bringing in a team of agents to turn it over. And assistant U.S. attorney of the District of Columbia to supervise that and her name is Deborah Curtis.
So we've had -- we turned it over to both the FBI and the Justice Department.
Id. at 16; see also id. at 39 (“the number one national security lawyer in the United States for the Justice Department is the person that Mr. Montgomery was dealing with, Deborah Curtis. She has won every award at the Justice Department”); Id. at 40 (“Mr. Montgomery was dealing at the upper reaches of the FBI, the director himself, James Comey. . . . [Comey has] been dealing directly -- Mr. Montgomery has been dealing directly with the FBI director”).
Note: The turnover of hard drives will occur on Aug. 19, 2015 – the day before Montgomery is scheduled to testify in a deposition in Montgomery v. Risen. See Sectec Astronomy, Aug. 19, 2015.
See also Sectec Astronomy, Sept. 9, 2015 for information on a letter from James Baker (FBI General Counsel) taking issue with multiple contentions made by Klayman (and noting that "[t]This letter focuses on the conditions under which the FBI took possession of the materials and is not intended as a comprehensive response to other statements made by you to Magistrate Judge Goodman at the August 21 , 2015 hearing").
October-December 2014
MCSO RICO FUNDS: According to the Second Quarter FY2015 RICO Report published by the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, MCSO received and spent $ 0 in State/Local RICO Funds between October 1 and December 30, 2014.
Oct. 2, 2014
Klayman files a "deportation petition" against Obama, citing the Arpaio-Zullo birther investigation.
Oct. 3, 2014
Gallups and Zullo appear on the Peter Boyle’s Show. See Peter Boyles Show - Oct 3, 2014 - Hr 4, 710KNUS News/Talk Radio (Podcast), Oct. 3, 2014; see also PPSimmons, No Shock: Peter Boyles RENEGES on apology to Gallups and Zullo!, YouTube, Oct. 3, 2014.
See here for unofficial transcript.
Zullo appears on Carl Gallups’ Freedom Friday radio show to discuss the status of the Arpaio-Zullo investigations – and to discuss the Peter Boyle’s Show. See PPSimmons, “Lt. Zullo Excoriates Talk Host P. Boyles, B. Riley, Congressmen!,” YouTube, Oct. 3, 2014.
See here for unofficial transcript.
Stephen Lemons reports that additional sources have confirmed (off the record) his June 2014 report that Arpaio and the MCSO are investigating an alleged conspiracy between the DOJ and Judge Snow to "get" Arpaio:
"...[T]he Birther investigation has since diverted into an even wilder snipe hunt with Mike Zullo of Cold Case Posse fame and an MCSO deputy involved in a probe of Judge Snow and the U.S. Department of Justice, regarding a supposed plot to "get" Arpaio.
As I detailed in a June column, this phony plot, according to sources, was dreamed up by a Seattle con artist, who is being paid large sums of money with MCSO's confidential informant funds, at Arpaio's direction.
Neither Arpaio nor Zullo deny the story, and since the column first ran, I've had other sources come forward (off the record, natch) to confirm its veracity."
See Stephen Lemons, Joe Arpaio Lies About Raising Cash Off Birther Insanity, As Proven By The Joe Show (Video), Phoenix New Times, Oct. 3, 2014.
Oct. 4, 2014
“After years of failure, missed deadlines, unkept promises and a solid public record of doing nothing, Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse commander Mike Zullo turns on the ones who made him, the birthers, blaming them for his lack of progress.” Dr. Conspiracy, “Zullo: It’s the birthers’ fault,” Obama Conspiracy Theories, Oct. 4, 2014.
Oct. 7, 2014
Judge Snow issues an order setting a status conference for October 28, 2014. See ECF 746 (PDF). Per the Order, the parties will address three main issues:
1. The Armendariz-related investigations - and the Court Monitor's observations regarding same;
2. Issues relating to MCSO's claims regarding costs associated with implementing the Injunction; and
3. Issues raised by Arpaio's recent comments to the press - i.e.,
"[T]he Court is concerned that [MCSO] training is undermined by contemporaneous public statements attributed to the Sheriff that suggest that he would again engage in the same operations that the Court found, on a number of grounds, to be unconstitutional—the very grounds that the required MCSO training seeks to correct. As this Court has previously observed, the Sheriff is free to make whatever public statements he wishes. Nevertheless, the Sheriff “sets the overall direction and policy for the MCSO.” Thus his deputies cannot be presumed to ignore what he says. The Court wishes to determine the position of the parties, if any, as to whether the public statements of MCSO supervisory personnel should or may be considered in evaluating whether the Defendants are in full and effective compliance with the terms of the Court’s Order concerning training or otherwise."
ECF 746 (PDF) at 2. See also “Judge concerned Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio is undermining training,” AP/abc15.com, Oct. 7, 2014.
Oct. 8, 2014
The Melendres Court Monitor issues a "Memorandum to the Court Regarding Meeting With County Officials." As later described by MCSO, "The Monitor’s Memorandum raises the following issues...:
"(1) overtime requests;
(2) additional sergeants to supervise Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (“MCSO”) deputies and additional supervisory duties requiring additional funds;
(3) the Bureau of Internal Oversight (“BIO”);
(4) the Early Identification System (“EIS”) (referred to as the “Early Intervention System” by the Monitor);
(5) the cost of body cameras and storage of related data; and
(6) the need for sworn personnel in both the Informational Technology Unit (“ITU”) and the BIO."
See ECF 752 (line spacing between numbered items added).
The Phoenix New Times publishes an article on the recent publication of former MCSO Chief Deputy Brian Sand's self-published book, "Arpaio De Facto Lawman." See Ray Stern, “Parade of Fools: Brian Sands Can't Distance Himself From the Bad Acts Detailed in His Book,” Phoenix New Times, Oct. 8, 2014; see also Morgan Loew, "Former MCSO chief dishes about Arpaio," KPHO/CBS 5, Sept. 11, 2014, and Ray Stern, “Sidebar: In Book, Ex-Arpaio Aide Sticks To Weak Story On Campaign-Conspiracy Allegations,” Phoenix New Times, Oct. 9, 2014.
During a status check in Dennis Montgomery's criminal case pending in Nevada, the court is advised that “[Montgomery]. lives in Washington State, suffered stroke in May, released from hospital in June, still suffering from effects of stroke and [Montgomery]’s doctor does not believe Deft. should be traveling at this time. Therefore, request matter be continued.” The State did not object and the Court grants the requested continuance through Feb. 11, 2015. See State of Nevada vs Dennis Montgomery, No. C-10-268764-1, Oct. 8, 2014 Minutes of Proceedings (Nev. Super. Ct. Clark Cty.).
Oct. 9, 2014
★ Arpaio is scheduled to meet with Mackiewicz at 4:00 pm today according to one of Arpaio's Outlook calendar entries later included in Exhibit 2858 (Response to 7/22/2015 Monitor Document Request Related to ITR 25 (MELC662424-MELC1397042). See Arpaio Oct. 2, 2015 testimony at 2379.
Oct. 10, 2014
Judge Snow enters an Order Granting Stipulation To Amend Supplemental/Permanent Injunction/Judgment Order. See ECF 748. As Megan Cassidy later reports,
“One of the key reforms in Snow's order required the agency to install recording devices on all patrol vehicles, but the language was amended this month to replace the term "in-vehicle" to "on-person."
All patrol deputies and sergeants who make traffic stops will be equipped with the devices, for a total of 376. Current models can range from about $400 to $600 apiece, and they allow officers to mount the devices to their eyewear, ball cap, lapel or elsewhere on their uniform.”
See Megan Cassidy, “MCSO plans on-body cameras,” Arizona Republic, Oct. 27, 2015.
Oct. 21, 2014
MCSO/Arpaio file a "Response Brief Regarding Monitor's October 8, 2014 Memorandum to the Court Regarding Meeting With County Officials by Defendants Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office." See ECF 752.
The Melendres Plaintiffs file a "Response to Monitor's [September 28] Report on Armendariz Investigation," which "sets forth Plaintiffs’ views on the salient issues arising from the Monitor’s Armendariz Memorandum: (1) demonstrated discovery violations by MCSO; (2) additional evidence to support the Court’s past orders granting Plaintiffs injunctive relief; and (3) evidence to support additional injunctive relief." See ECF 753 at 3.
MCSO/Arpaio file a "Response Brief Regarding Monitor's September 28, 2014 Update and Assessment of MCSO's Armendariz and Related Investigations," in which they complain that "The Monitor’s Update ignores the substantial progress made in these Armendariz-related investigations and contains countless misstatements and inaccuracies..." See ECF 755 at 2.
Oct. 13, 2014
📄 ZULLO DOC. Montgomery emails Zullo at 14:56 re: "Watch." (ZULLO 003910). This document is reflected in the "Fifth Amendment Privilege Log, which is later docketed in the Melendres 2015 proceedings as ECF 1507-6, filed in support of Plaintiffs’ Oct. 30, 2015 Opposition to Zullo's Oct. 26 Motion for Extension of Time (to find an attorney).
Oct. 27, 2014
Judge Snow issues an order declining to hold the upcoming hearing under seal (as had been requested by MCSO). See ECF 759 (PDF). See also Jude Joffe-Block, Judge To Hear Update On MCSO Internal Criminal Investigation, KJZZ, Oct. 27, 2014.
📄 ZULLO DOC. Montgomery sends an email to Zullo re: "Arpaio" at 14;41. (ZULLO 003656-59.) This 4-page document is reflected in the "Fifth Amendment Privilege Log, which is later docketed in the Melendres 2015 proceedings as ECF 1507-6, filed in support of Plaintiffs’ Oct. 30, 2015 Opposition to Zullo's Oct. 26 Motion for Extension of Time (to find an attorney).. Mackiewicz emails Zullo at 8:36 re: "TT - MW Description Final Draft May 2002.doc." (ZULLO 003701). He attaches to this email a 12-page document file-named "TT - MW Description Final Draft May 2002.doc." (ZULLO 003702-14). These documents are reflected in the "Fifth Amendment Privilege Log, which is later docketed in the Melendres 2015 proceedings as ECF 1507-6, filed in support of Plaintiffs’ Oct. 30, 2015 Opposition to Zullo's Oct. 26 Motion for Extension of Time (to find an attorney).
Oct. 28, 2014
Judge Snow holds a hearing to discuss, among other things, matters arising from the Armandariz Investigation. See Minutes of Proceeding (ECF 760); Transcript (ECF 776). Plaintiffs describe multiple instances of contemptuous conduct by Arpaio/MSCO over the course of the litigation (Id. at 65-72), then conclude: “Based on that record, Your Honor, and under the case law that I've cited, I think that it is time to issue remedies to prevent the countermanding of MCSO's other compliance efforts and the corrosive effect of statements of the sheriff and other command staff that are derogatory toward the Court's orders and dismissive of the power of the federal judiciary to correct constitutional violations.” (Id. at 72-73.)
See generally Megan Cassidy, “Judge blasts Arpaio, office for lax internal investigation,” Arizona Republic, Oct. 28, 2014; Jude Joffe-Block, “Judge Slams Arpaio For Investigation Mistakes, Comments,” KJZZ, Oct. 29, 2014; Matthew Hendley, “Joe Arpaio, MCSO Get a Talking-To From Federal Judge in Racial-Profiling Case,” Phoenix New Times, Oct. 29, 2014; Jacques Billeaud, “Judge unleashes criticism on Arpaio’s office,” AP/Washington Times, Oct. 28, 2014; David Schwartz, “Arizona sheriff ordered to undergo training to stop racial profiling,” Reuters, Oct. 29, 2014.
The Armendariz Investigation
Court Monitor Warshaw also discusses his team's findings regarding the Armendariz investigation. From the transcript (id. at 11-13):
I'd like to at this time emphasize in our collective judgment as a monitoring team, and we have hundreds of years of experience, we have never seen, having viewed a good number of the interviews that occurred as part and parcel of that criminal inquiry, we had never seen a more deficient, unprofessional set of aimless interviews, interviews replete with extraordinary familiarities, informalities, and apologetic treatment towards those who were being interviewed. This, in our view, Your Honor, called into question seriousness in which the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office had taken the order of this Court.
We learned that there were no policies on the use of videos. We learned that the handling of evidence was at best done loosely. And notwithstanding the exchange of general cordialities between our team and members of the MCSO, we would have to say that our interaction with the MCSO as it pertains to this investigation we felt they displayed a cavalier, if not a contemptuous, attitude towards our assistance, and, by extension, the order of this Court.
We were perplexed that they had removed Captain Holmes from Internal Affairs. Captain Kenneth Holmes had been the original commander of Internal Affairs with whom we had dealt. We were led to believe that this had been done presumably because of his leadership on this matter, but we were somewhat puzzled by the fact that he was removed and promoted to a [p 12] chief's position. We were equally puzzled that -----, who was instrumental in the dissemination of the e-mail that was contrary to our directions, and who's been in front of this court on another matter and has been NOI'd. ....
***
MONITOR WARSHAW: We were also concerned that the department moved into the command of internal affairs the incumbent, Captain Bailey, from his previous position as the commander of the Special Investigations Division, especially considering that the Special Investigations Division was the parent component that oversaw the Human Smuggling Unit, and these personnel assigned to the Human Smuggling Unit and their activities would be the specific subject of the inquiry being made by Internal Affairs. At all times relevant to our interaction with MCSO there was a representative from the Maricopa County Attorney's Office present, and to the best of our recollection, we can think of no time that there was any concern that even approximated the kind that was articulated in the defendants' response to us during the course and conduct of our interaction with the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office to date. We cannot recall her objections or concerns regarding any of the points that have been raised in the defendants' response to us.
Regarding the closeout of a criminal investigation that was specifically referenced to the possible taking of property, we are also perplexed that an official closeout of a criminal investigation is accomplished through an internal memorandum sent from an investigative sergeant to a captain of police with no signatories or approvals from anyone above that particular position of captain of police.
We have worked diligently to be of assistance to the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office in the pursuit of the truth, but as we have indicated on our report, that our best efforts have been consistently met with resistance and displeasure.
Id. See also Megan Cassidy, “Judge blasts Arpaio, office for lax internal investigation,” Arizona Republic, Oct. 28, 2014.
Arpaio's Recent Statements to the Press
Judge Snow also takes issue with Arpaio's recent statements to the press. As reported by KJZZ,
"Snow was also frustrated by a statement Arpaio made to the Associated Press recently about a 2008 operation in the town of Guadalupe.
That operation was a key part of the racial profiling case, and included activities Snow found to be unconstitutional.
But Arpaio told the Associated Press, "With the same circumstances, I'd do it all over again.”
See Jude Joffe-Block, “Judge Slams Arpaio For Investigation Mistakes, Comments,” KJZZ, Oct. 29, 2014; see also Matthew Hendley, “Joe Arpaio, MCSO Get a Talking-To From Federal Judge in Racial-Profiling Case,” Phoenix New Times, Oct. 29, 2014; Jacques Billeaud, “Judge unleashes criticism on Arpaio’s office,” AP/Washington Times, Oct. 28, 2014.
Arpaio and Court-Ordered Training
Judge Snow, upon learning that Arpaio had not yet taken the court-ordered training, states he will order Arpaio to do so. See Transcript [ECF 776] at 75. See also David Schwartz, “Arizona sheriff ordered to undergo training to stop racial profiling,” Reuters, Oct. 29, 2014.
📄 ZULLO DOC. Zullo emails Mackiewicz at 19:35 re: "Image." (ZULLO 003874). This document is reflected in the "Fifth Amendment Privilege Log, which is later docketed in the Melendres 2015 proceedings as ECF 1507-6, filed in support of Plaintiffs’ Oct. 30, 2015 Opposition to Zullo's Oct. 26 Motion for Extension of Time (to find an attorney).
Oct. 30, 2014
“After two years of denying he personally profited from the [MCSO] investigation into the validity of President Barack Obama's birth certificate, [Mike Zullo,] the head of the sheriff's Cold Case Posse admitted to CBS 5 Investigates that he accepted a large monetary gift from one of the sources in the investigation,” reports Morgan Loew of CBS TV 5. See Morgan Loew, “Birther posse chief: I accepted $10,000 from source,” CBS TV 5 (Phoenix), Oct. 30, 2014.
Zullo initially emphatically denied that he had received the payment until presented with evidence of the payment. Id. The person who paid him was Bill Wolf, who “had supplied the Cold Case Posse with a dossier of information about alleged problems with the President's birth certificate,” which “became a major source of information for Zullo's investigation.” Id. See also “Turning the Tables: Investigating the Cold Case Posse,” Obama Conspiracy Theories, Oct. 30, 2014 (commenting on the Loew/CBS 5 report and noting how it corroborates assertions made in the movie "The Joe Show"); see also “CBS-5 Phoenix - Runs Shameless Hit Piece on Cold-Case Posse,” PPSimmons Blogspot, Nov. 1, 2014 (Gallups/Zullo's response (including an "interview" with Zullo), which attempts to discredit the source of the information and to explain away the monetary exchange as a personal matter having nothing to do with the birther investigation. Note: Gallups'/Zullo's claim that former CCP member Brian Rielly was fired is demonstrably untrue. See "The Brian Reilly resignation letter," Obama Conspiracy Theories, Jan. 17, 2015 (attaching a copy of Reilly's resignation letter and publishing a series of emails from Zullo to Reilly in which Zullo asked Reilly to reconsider his resignation.)
📄 Seattle Operation Document: A 1-page document – Email from David Webb [Montgomery] to "Mike" [Zullo] RE: Work dated 10/30/2014 – is later listed as potential Exhibit 2258 in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings. See Plaintiffs’ Oct. 12, 2015 List of Exhibits, ECF 1462-2. The contents of this document have not yet been made public, but it seems reasonable to speculate that this relates to Montgomery and the Seattle Operation.
Oct. 31, 2014
Tim Casey and his firm file a "Motion to Withdraw as Attorney" for Arpaio and the MCSO. ECF 773 (PDF). The Motion does not specify reasons for the requested withdraw. See also Ray Stern, “Arpaio's Lawyer Tim Casey Wants Out of Racial-Profiling Case; ACLU Hopes He'll Stick Around,” Phoenix New Times, Nov. 4, 2014.
Sometime before Nov. 2, 2014
Mackiewicz and/or Zullo apparently ask Montgomery to fly to DC to meet with their "NSA advisors." See Montgomery's Nov. 2 email to Mackiewicz et al ("[o]nce again you are upset at me for not getting on a plane to meet your NSA advisors, when my doctors have advised against it).
Nov. 2, 2014
★ Montgomery emails [?] recipients, per Exhibit 2263 admitted into evidence in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings. Among other things, Montgomery states:
"If you look at the previous email I sent you, you will find all of the build numbers you have been looking for.. The website is also up and contains the latest information on the various adobe builds.
You can’t expect the technology to find data that Adobe leaves out in some of their formats.
Regarding the issue of money, I will leave that to the sheriff and Brian Mackweitz to address.
Regarding my commitment, at your and Brian Mickiewicz’s request, I got on a plane 4 weeks after my stroke and brain coiling [i.e, apparently 4 weeks after May 16, 2014*] against medical advice. In addition, I was forced to sacrifice my recovery to adhere to you ridiculous timeframe and further your agenda.
Once again you are upset at me for not getting on a plane to meet your NSA advisors, when my doctors have advised against it.* * *
You told me in previous emails that you wanted this to get back on track. You most recent email convinces me otherwise.
<half page of blank space>
Go find someone else to do this work."
Mackiewicz responds on Nov. 3.
*Note: Per a May 27, 2014 letter from Paul Chuwn Lim, MD, Medical Director of Swedish Rehabilitation Services, the surgery/strokes occurred on May 16, 2014. According to a January 6, 2015 letter from Paul Chuwn Lim, MD, Medical Director of Swedish Rehabilitation Services, Montgomery completed his inpatient rehab on June 21, 2014.
📄 Seattle Operation Document: A 1-page document – Email from David Webb [Montgomery] RE: DC dated 11/2/2014 – is later listed as potential Exhibit 2259 in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings. See Plaintiffs’ Oct. 12, 2015 List of Exhibits, ECF 1462-2. The contents of this document have not yet been made public, but it seems reasonable to speculate that this exhibit is the email referenced above and already produced.
Note. Presumably, this is the same email referenced above.
Nov. 3, 2014
Melendres Plaintiffs file a Response to Tim Casey's Oct. 31 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney, stating (in part):
"Plaintiffs submit that the immediate withdrawal of the Schmitt firm would result in prejudice to Plaintiffs and to the efforts of both parties to comply with the Court’s orders, including the Supplemental Permanent Injunction of October 2, 2013.
* * *
Plaintiffs therefore request that the Court delay the withdrawal of the Schmitt firm for a limited time period and for a limited purpose, so that the Schmitt firm may conclude its work on these specific efforts. In the alternative, Plaintiffs request that the Court condition any order granting the application for withdrawal of counsel upon the Schmitt firm’s continued availability to defense counsel to consult on these limited matters. Plaintiffs note the Court’s previous similar order with respect to the withdrawal of prior defense counsel, the Ogletree Deakins law firm. See Tr. of Oct. 1, 2010 Status Conf. 13:1-22 (“And I am not going to say that I’m going to hold you in this matter permanently, but I’m not going to let you out until such time as such depositions I order are completed, so that you are available to Mr. Liddy and to his client and your client to assist them in the preparation of the depositions concerning the contents of other documents.”)."
ECF 777 at 3-4 (PDF). See also Ray Stern, “Arpaio's Lawyer Tim Casey Wants Out of Racial-Profiling Case; ACLU Hopes He'll Stick Around,” Phoenix New Times, Nov. 4, 2014.
★ Mackiewicz responds to the Nov. 2 email from Montgomery, per Exhibit 2263 admitted into evidence in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings. Among other things, he states:
… I will admit we did take your word as gospel for some time time but that time ended when you grossly misrepresented the work that you said was completed.
It would have not been such a big deal Dennis but Mike and I represented the fact the work was complete and it wasn't. Look I am not stupid you have lied to me several times over the past 12 months. I have caught you in you lies and chosen to move forward and look past the fact you lied. I always kept hope and believed when it came to your work product and your "STORY" you were always being truthful. The problem now is were do the lies end and the truth start. I am not even sure you know the answer to that Dennis.
From day one I thought we all had a common goal in mind when it came to this investigation. If your "STORY" was based on facts and the information you provided was all truthful Mike, I, and the Office was dedicated do anything in our powers LEGALLY to help bring your story forward and expose the TRUTH. I truly believe Mike, I, and the Office have lived up to out part of the deal. We have given you approximately 120,000 dollars plus in exchange for information. We brought you before the Arizona State Attorney General, we found you two different Attorneys, and we opened the door to a Federal Judge to give you as much protection as possible. Mike and I went to the Administration several times and asked for extensions to continue this investigation because we believed your "STORY" and the information you provided. When you had a stroke and you had NO one to turn you I was on a plane to assist you and you family. Not to mention the personal sacrifices Mike and I have made over the past 12 months to make sure you and you family were taken care of. Dennis if you don't remember Mike and I even gave you 200.00 dollars a piece out of our own pockets so you could have a Thanksgiving with you family last year. Just to later find out you worked Tim for 500.00 dollars also.
And to address one other issue that has seemed to come up more then once. If I remember correctly it was you[r] choice to get on a plane and fly to Washington DC. Mike, I, or the Office was not aware you were advised by your Doctor not to travel UNTIL after you flew back to Seattle. I remember Mike and I specifically told when you after you informed us of that information you would have to provide a doctors letter before we would let you travel again. I also remember you getting so intoxicated at dinner while in Washington DC I had to tell the waiter to start serving you cocktails with no alcohol. Mike, I, or the Office would have never let you flight to Washington DC if we knew it was against your Doctors orders.
* * *
Dennis your not a stupid person. You know exactly what we need and want to be able to move forward. You know everything you provide us has to get verified by a third party. If I just believed everything people told me without verifying it by facts or evidence everyone would be locked up. If you CANT or WONT provide Mike, and I with what is necessary to prove and verify everything then be honest and tell us. There is more then one way to skin a cat.
As far is Larry Klayman is concerned his involvement in this investigation is non existent. we understand he is your attorney and he is representing you. BUT he has no bearing at all on how this case is investigated and what the outcome maybe. You might be able to play Larry for what you need for a little while but in the end you and Larry still need someone with CREDIBILITY to verify the information and your "STORY" .
And for my last and final point. Dennis I have been a Deputy Sheriff for almost 18 Years. When I graduated the Police Academy I took an Oath of Office which I still keep believe in. I know you have heard me say this more then once but this is one investigation of many in my Career. My job is to find the facts, verify the facts, and come to a logical conclusion that a reasonable person would believe based on those facts. I have no agenda is this investigation Dennis. When we decide this investigation is over I will look at all the facts, statements, and evidence that has been collected over the past year and ask myself what would a reasonable person would think. Remember that Oath I mention, it means no matter how I feel personally regarding the outcome of this investigation I am sworn to do the right thing Dennis. I truly hope in the end we all accomplish the same goal we all had in the beginning, but remember if not I am NOT AFRAID and I can promise you I will do the right thing.
Dennis it is a great possibility that your future depends on what you do from here. We have days not weeks, not months. Time is of the essence
Klayman responds to the above Mackiewicz email to Montgomery.
"This is inappropriate! I asked Mike [Zullo] to have us talk after my oral argument in the NSA case. I do not appreciate this lack of respect! More later..."
Mackiewicz responds to Klayman.
"Larry, Pardon me I included you out of courtesy. No worries point taken and I will exclude you from all other communications, between our confidential informant and the judge going forward. That is to include what path this investigation takes going forward. Have a wonderful day. Good luck in your argument."
Klayman responds to Brian Mackiewicz.
"I don't appreciate your games...there would be no judge if not for me. I suggest you do not mess with [D.C. Federal District Court Judge] Lamberth. There is no reason to do so at this time and your games are just to squeeze Dennis through me. I don't appreciate being played."
★ Mackiewicz emails Klayman, per Exhibit 2937 admitted into evidence in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings:
Larry,
Just want to point out a few things. It does not surprise me that you called the Sheriff Don't really know what you were trying to prove but all it did was show your true colors. I am in charge of this investigation and have the authority to do what I feel is right and is necessary for the best interest of the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office and the Sheriff I was not on the phone today but Mike was not happy with the way you threatened him. So from now on all communication will be through me in reference to this investigation. And since there is a major issues regarding Dennis Montgomery credibility I sure hope you do not plan on mentioning him or make reference to him in regards to your oral argument tomorrow. I will have no problem obtaining the transcripts and contacting the presiding judge personally.
Contrary to your belief I have no interest in blowing this case up Larry, I just want the games to end and for Dennis to be honest.
If the software program Dennis made truly works then let's see it. If not he needs to come clean. The excuses are getting old.
Oh bye the way the Sheriff wants an update on Wednesday at 1600 hours. Hope you can talk some sense into Dennis between now and then."
Klayman responds to Mackiewicz:
Brian:
I did not threaten anyone, including Mike. I pointed out that if you precipitously approached the judge and trashed Dennis, I would react. This is not a threat but simply comports with my duty to zealously represent my client.
I also take issue with your calculated statements about Dennis' veracity and honesty. You yourself admit that more analysis is needed. I also find offensive your implication that I would not fully inform the Judge Lamberth if things do not pan out. But you have not shown that Dennis had lied in any way and your approach is a heavy handed one calculated to put pressure on me to pressure him. Your creating a written record which could be subject to discovery is plain stupid, period, at this point. It will harm you if Dennis produces the information you seek. And, there is no rush in going to Lamberth now. He can simply be put on hold. To do so, if simply to harm Dennis -- plain and simple -- and pressure him, and lacks any rational basis AT THIS TIME.
Brian, I respect you and Mike and of course the Sheriff. But your actions -- that means you Brian -- are irresponsible and crass. If you know anything about me, I don't roll over to this type of conduct.
Govern yourself accordingly.
Larry
Mackiewicz responds to this email on Nov. 4.
★ Seattle Operation Exhibit. A Nov. 3, 2014 email from Mackiewicz to Klayman, copying Zullo and Montgomery (MELC829381-MELC829383), is later admitted into evidence as Exhibit 2938 in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings. See Mackiewicz Oct 28, 2015 testimony at tbd. According to an eyewitness at the Oct. 28 hearing, this email indicates that Mackiewiz is unhappy with Montgomery's performance (after) money was provided and door opened to federal judge for him (Montgomery). (Note: This information will be confirmed or clarified/corrected upon review of the transcript.)
Note. Presumably, this email is the same and/or part of the email chains referenced above and below, although that has not been confirmed.
📄 Seattle Operation Document: A 9-page document – Email from Brian Mackiewicz to "Brian Deputy Dogg Mackiewicz" Re: DC dated 11/3/2014 – is later listed as potential Exhibit 2261 in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings. See Plaintiffs’ Oct. 12, 2015 List of Exhibits, ECF 1462-2. The contents of this document have not yet been made public, but it seems reasonable to speculate that this relates to Montgomery and the Seattle Operation. (Note that this exhibit does not appear to be the same as the email string noted above, because (a) addressees are different and (b) number of pages are different.)
Nov. 4, 2014
★ Mackiewicz responds to Klayman's Nov. 3 email, per Exhibit 2937 admitted into evidence in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings:
"Good morning Larry. If you want to discuss this issue or issues any further let me know. I will be in DC until Saturday. And for the record I put this in writing for a reason, this is not my first rodeo. I have plenty of evidence to back up ALL my statements. Look forward to hearing from you."
Nov. 5, 2014
★ Mackiewicz follows up on his Nov. 4 email to Klayman, per Exhibit 2937 admitted into evidence in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings:
"Larry,
It's been 36 hours and I have not heard from you. l am assuming you have no interest in discussing this matter.
That is very unfortunate because I was looking forward to discussing this with you. The Office will be forced to take the appropriate actions."
★ As of "November 5, 2014, or thereabouts," Arpaio is still receiving oral reports from Mr. Zullo about the Montgomery investigation. See Arpaio Oct. 2, 2015 testimony at 2380. In fact, Arpaio is scheduled to meet with Zullo at 4:00 pm today according to an email later included in potential Exhibit 2272 (Email from David Welch to "Mike" re Judge dated 11/5/2014 (MELC199984-85). Id.
📄 Seattle Operation Document: A 2-page document – Email from David Welch* [Montgomery] to "Mike" [Zullo] re Judge dated 11/5/2014 – is later listed as potential Exhibit 2262 in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings. See Plaintiffs’ Oct. 12, 2015 List of Exhibits, ECF 1462-2.
*Note. Either Montgomery has yet another email alias as "David Welch," or the reference to "Welch" instead of "Webb" was a typo. As noted below, Plaintiffs' counsel indicates that this is an email exchange between Montgomery and Zullo.
The contents of this document have not yet been made public, but some information has been disclosed during the hearings to date, as follows:
- The email, per Plaintiffs' counsel, is between Zullo and Montgomery. See Arpaio Oct. 2, 2015 testimony at 2381.
- In a 12:28 pm email, Zullo indicates he will see Arpaio this afternoon at 4:00 PM. Id. at 2380.
- In one of the emails in this string, Montgomery, "mention[s] to Mr. Zullo of opening a PDF directly." Id. at 2381.
Nov. 6, 2014
★ Former NSA employees Thomas Drake and J. Kirk Wiebe meet "with Investigator Mike Zullo and detective Brian Mackiewicz of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office to examine certain data alleged to reflect partial results of the clandestine collection of a large volume of email and telephone communications, per Exhibit 2263 admitted into evidence in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings. See also Nov. 13 for the subsequent Drake/Wiebe written report.
★ Zullo and Montgomery exchange emails "re: Work" per Exhibit 2940 admitted into evidence in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings.
Montgomery emails Zullo:
"I will work with you to try to resolve our differences. I am waiting to hear from Klayman on how best to do that."
Zullo responds to Montgomery:
"Dennis here's the plan your attorney can call Brian by 9 AM tomorrow morning. If there's no call we have to do what we have to do."
Montgomery responds to Zullo:
"What does that mean?"
Zullo responds to Montgomery:
"Just what it says Dennis because he thinks he's gonna run the clock out on us and prevent us from going to the judge that's not gonna happen if you want to work this out he gets on the phone tomorrow by nine with Brian not me"
Montgomery responds to Zullo:
"Brian, I am trying hard to resolve this matter with you guys.
I was not able to fly to DC to meet your NSA experts as you requested because my doctors thought it I should not fly travel at this time.
This stroke has damaged me enough. I am sure you don't want to make it worse?
Regarding the judge, at least make it clear that my doctors thought it was not a good idea for me to fly at this time.
I should have never flown the time you guys wanted me to meet the judge in the first place, but can't do much about that now.
I do want to try to work this out."
Zullo responds to Montgomery:
"Dennis you tell us what you're going to do for us in the next five days that's going to stop us from going to the judge tomorrow.
Because right now your credibility is zero."
Montgomery responds to Zullo:
"What will it take to satisfy you guys and get past this deadlock?"
Zullo responds to Montgomery:
"Source code to BC tonight.
Coming up there and identify the water marks against other documents.
Verification that the emails about the sheriffs and Sheridan are true and not implanted."
Montgomery responds to Zullo:
"Unrealistic expectations."
Nov. 7, 2014
★ Seattle Operation Exhibit. A 3-page document – Email from Brian Mackiewicz to Larry Klayman copying Michael Zullo, David Webb [Montgomery], and Dina James Re: DC dated 11/7/2014 (MELC202173-75) – is later admitted into evidence as Exhibit 2263 in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings. See Mackiewicz Oct. 28, 2015 testimony at tbd.
Per eyewitness at the Oct. 28, 2015 hearing, in this is an email in which Mackiewicz is expressing (to Larry Klayman) dissatisfaction with Montgomery. Montgomery's 50 hard drives are mentioned in the email. (Note: This information will be confirmed or clarified/corrected upon review of the transcript.)
★ Mackiewicz emails Klayman, Michael Zullo, Montgomery and Dina James, per Exhibit 2263 admitted into evidence in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings.
Among other things, Mackiewicz states as follows:
Dennis Montgomery represented the hard drives contained classified and sensitive information that he obtained while working at either eTreppid, or Blixware on behalf of federal government as a CIA contractor.
When our experts* examined the information contained on the drives, not only did the numerous drives NOT contain any classified or sensitive information, they were instead contained data dumps of you relevant computer information hours off video feeds for Al Jazeera news feed.
After reviewing all the hard drives our experts concluded that Dennis Montgomery deliberately complied massive amounts of data on to these drives for the purpose of obfuscating the fact the data itself contained no evidence to support Dennis Montgomery's claims. There was no sensitive information contained on any of these 50 hard drives.
In addition, our experts brought question in the validity concerning an number of emails Dennis Montgomery provided in the same hard drives.
Our experts also determined that much of the information that Dennis Montgomery has alleged that was harvested by the federal government in violation of the fourth amendment protections cannot be sourced for validity based on the information contained in the 50 hard drives Dennis Montgomery provided.
Two days worth of email correspondence and telephone calls to Dennis Montgomery advising him all is required of him is to cooperate and provide all source information supporting his allegations would remedy his situation immediately. He has refused. I should add he refuses while at the same time professing to want to cooperate.
At this juncture, after a 13 month investigation, Maricopa County Sheriffs office CANNOT validate the credibility of Dennis Montgomery and or his work without his full and candid cooperation in supplying the necessary evidence for our experts to substantiate his work and deem it authentic and creditable.
Dennis Montgomery is leaving us no other alternative but to take this investigation in a completely different course going forward. It is extremely discouraging to learn most if not all the representations made by Dennis Montgomery to investigators, the State of Arizona Attorney General, and a Federal Judge have been less then truthful.
Id.
Nov. 13, 2014
★ Former NSA employees Thomas Drake and J. Kirke Weibe sign a letter dated today in which they summarize their analysis of information provided by Montgomery to the MCSO during the Seattle Operation, per Exhibit 2531 later admitted into evidence in the 2015 Melendres contempt hearings.
In this letter, Drake and Weibe state as follows:
"On 6 November 2014 ... J. Kirk Wiebe and Thomas A. Drake, both former employees of the National Security Agency, and each having many years of experience in the matter of data analysis for intelligence production purposes, met with Investigator Mike Zullo and detective Brian Mackiewicz of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office to examine certain data alleged to reflect partial results of the clandestine collection of a large volume of email and telephone communications and document files. ... Mr. Zullo and Mr. Mackiewicz have stated that the data originated iwth Dennis Montgomery, a subject of an ongoing Maricopa Sheriff's investigation.
Mr. Weibe and Mr. Drake examined the content of approximately 45 high-capacity external computer drives to ascertain whether any of the data stored on the drives would reflect or otherwise reveal operations involving clandestine access to, and collection of, raw dictate from major network line (or any other source) carrying or storing a variety of modern packet-based and digital communications such as email or telephone calls or other electronically-based accounts belonging to American users.
The data examined consists of list of the communications addresses of individuals, companies, and organizations located a various addresses within the United States. The drives also contain a high volume of recordings of the Al Jazeera television network. Mr. Weibe and Mr. Drake also found and examined common Microsoft operating system files, as well as a number of proprietary and open-source multi-media application files.
Among the alleged applications examined were three purported C code files allegedly associated with the NSA’s THIN THREAD and TRAILBLAZER programs. Upon analyzing the format and caveats associated with these particular programs and other data allegedly coming from classified sources, Mr. Weibe and Mr. Drake encounter nonconventional coding formats and classification caveats not resembling typical government practice. In fact, the three code files were actually faked and framed to look like real code but crudely cut and pasted from snippets of exiting code made up from standard code buffer routines, video device processing code and Active X lookup and browser code. Comments were not in the proper syntax or followed standard naming conventions and were clearly and simply manufactured to make them look real. For example, one of the files had a comment section noting the TRAILBLAZER program from the 2009-2010 timeframe when TRAILBLAZER was abandoned at NSA in 2006. In summary, these wholly fake files did not consist of actual software code from any of the NSA programs noted.
Finally, Mr. Weibe and Mr. Drake examined printed materials allegedly written by officials of the U.S. Government, in particular the CIA and other organizations. Again, there [was] no evidence suggest[ing] or revealing that the documents examined came from any sensitive source or were obtained through sensitive access methods involving specific software and relevant metadata that would enable the collection and processing of network-based or stored data.
We in particular note the complete lack of raw data files (or any other supporting evidence in the files provided) that would be expected if such data had been harvested through clandestine access to digital information.
In summary, this letter certifies that to the best of Mr. Wiebe’s and Mr. Drake’s knowledge, none of the data examined reveals or otherwise supports the assertion that the data contained on the hard drives examined resulted from the clandestine collection and processing of modern digital network communications and is instead evidence of an outright and fraudulent con perpetrated on the government for personal gain and cover.
Exhibit 2531 at MELC198094-95; see also Sheridan Sept. 25, 2015 Testimony at 1334-1335.
Notes. A Google search indicates that there is an ex-NSA employee/whistleblower by the name of "J. Kirk Wiebe" as well as an ex-NSA employee/whistleblower by the name of Thomas Drake.
On August 20, 2015, Larry Klayman -- who apparently represented Dennis Montgomery at the time Wiebe & Drake issued their findings to MCSO and and in 2015 filed at least two cases on Montogmery's behalf -- filed a lawsuit in DC on behalf of Wiebe and Drake. See Drake et al v. Alexander at al, No. 1:15-cv-01353-RJL (D.D.C. Aug. 20, 2015) (Complaint (PDF).)
Nov. 14, 2014
Judge Snow issues an order setting a hearing for November 20. [ECF 785 (PDF).] Matters to be addressed include Casey’s Motion to Withdraw “and MCSO’s recent discovery of additional materials to the extent that counsel moving to withdraw may be able to shed light on some or all of those materials.” Id.
★ Brian Mackiewicz emails Jerry Sheridan, forwarding the email he received from Thomas Drake, which contained the Nov. 13 letter prepared by Drake and Weibe (MELC198093-198095), per Exhibit 2531 later admitted into evidence in the 2015 Melendres contempt hearings. See Sheridan Sept. 25, 2015 testimony at 1322.
In Drake's email to Mackiewicz attaching the Nov. 23 letter, Drake states:
Brian,
Good morning!
Kirk Wiebe and I are providing you a summary (attached) of our data and information analysis of alleged "key data" designed to prove the source's case.
We have found that he is a complete and total FRAUD.
All he has done is provide you with readily available lists of email addresses, names, phone number of both individuals and businesses and a lot of framed up information, data and code BUT NO PROOF OF WHENCE THEY CAME and a whole lot of faked and made up documents and analysis.”
Exhibit 2531 at MELC198093. This email attaches the Nov. 13 letter (see above).
Mackiewicz forwards this email to Sheridan stating:
"Chief,
The written report from the three guys from the NSA regarding the information Dennis provided us. Interesting read."
Id.
★ Seattle Operation Exhibit: A 1-page document – Email from Brian Mackiewicz to Michael Zullo FW: Response dated 11/14/2014 (MELC198226) – is later admitted into evidence as Exhibit 2266 in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings. See Mackiewicz Oct. 28, 2015 testimony at tbd.
Per eyewitness at the Oct. 28 hearing, this email contains the following: "This is going to burn Elmer's house to the ground." According to Thomas Drake, Montgomery is a total fraud. (Note: This information will be confirmed or clarified/corrected upon review of the transcript.)
Note. "Elmer" (along with "Oz") were MCSO code names for Montgomery.
📄 ZULLO DOC. Mackiwicz emails Zullo at 7:45 re: "Fwd: Response." (ZULLO 003743.) He attaches to this email a pdf file-named "Certification_of_Examination_of_Data_13Nov2014.pdf." (ZULLO 003744-45.) These documents are reflected in the "Fifth Amendment Privilege Log, which is later docketed in the Melendres 2015 contempt proceedings as ECF 1507-6).
★ When questioned about his response to the ex-NSA employee's determination that Montgomery "is a complete and total fraud" and that the hard drives purporting to contain evidence of CIA hacking into bank accounts, etc. Arpaio testified as follows:
Q. After he received this e-mail [i.e., Exhibit 2531, discussed above] did Chief Sheridan ever come talk to you about this?
A. He may have, but once again, I'm not a computer guy. But I think he was talking about the hard drives as being a fraud. I don't know if he was talking about the informer being a fraud. He may have been talking what was in those hard drives are fraudulent.
Q. Well, let me read --
A. That's just my opinion. [2384]
Q. Let me read the e-mail again. It says, quote, We have found that he is a complete and total fraud, and quote. Do you have some understanding that the "he" is not Mr. Montgomery?
A. No. I said that he may have based his opinion on what was in those hard drives that were fraudulent.
Q. Do you recall anything about any discussion that you had with Chief Sheridan about this finding?
A. We may have discussed it.
Q. What did you and he discuss about this?
A. Well, I think -- first of all, I do remember we had discussions many months before about this Montgomery talking about the judge and all that, and told him to stop it. Number two, I think that was the catalyst that we decided not to pay this guy any more.
Q. So I apologize, Sheriff. What is it that you say was the catalyst for your deciding not to pay him any more?
A. Because I -- we were getting information that this fellow was making things up, probably nothing unusual, to get money.
Q. Well, at least as of November 2014, you knew that Montgomery was a fraud, correct?
A. That's putting it lightly at the time after a year of dealing with him, or my people dealing with him, so we decided to stop paying him at the time.
Q. Would you agree with me that no competent law enforcement [2385] official would want to continue working with and paying someone who is a complete and total fraud?
A. Well, in my almost 55 years dealing in law enforcement and informers, sometimes the worst guys come up with the best information. Sometimes they don't. There's many investigations by the federal government and others that spend a lot of money trying to develop information. Sometimes it doesn't work.
But I think in this situation we were fed up and tired of what we were hearing, and we stopped it. However, we never gave up on that bank investigation.
Arpaio's Oct. 2, 2015 Testimony at 2383-2385.
Note. Given that the 50 Montgomery hard drives purported to contain Montgomery's evidence of bank fraud, Arpaio's statement that they were fed up with what they were hearing but continued the bank investigation is somewhat baffling.
--- additional details under construction ---
See also Arpaio's Oct. 8, 2015 testimony (on cross) at 2520. See also Sheridan's Sept. 25, 2015 testimony at 1333; Sheridan's Sept. 29, 2015 testimony at 1594-1595.
Nov. 18, 2014
Tim Casey files a Reply in support of his Motion to Withdraw. [ECF 793.] In this paper, Casey asserts:
In accordance with Arizona Supreme Court Rule 42, Rule of Professional Conduct (“ER”) 1.16(a)(1), undersigned counsel avows that he and his firm are ethically required to withdraw from further representation of the defendants. Undersigned counsel cannot elaborate further regarding the facts underlying the issue, in order to avoid disclosing confidential and/or attorney-client privileged information. Counsel’s Application to Withdraw is based upon a mandatory duty to withdraw pursuant to ER 1.16(a)(1).
Id. at 1 (links added). ER 1.16(a)(1) provides as follows:
(a) Except as stated in paragraph (c), a lawyer shall not represent a client or, where representation has commenced, shall withdraw from the representation of a client if:
(1) the representation will result in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law;
(2) the lawyer's physical or mental condition materially impairs the lawyer's ability to represent the client; or
(3) the lawyer is discharged.
Given that Casey is not impaired and he reports that his client "consents" to his withdraw (not that client discharged him), it's reasonable to assume that he seeks withdraw because continued representation "will result in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law."
See also “Arpaio lawyer cites ethics as reason to withdraw from racial profiling case,” Associated Press/abc15.com, Nov. 19, 2014.
Nov. 19, 2014
📄 Seattle Operation Document: A 1-page document – MCSO Property and Evidence Report dated 11/19/2014 – is later listed as potential Exhibit 2905 in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings. See Plaintiffs’ Oct. 12, 2015 List of Exhibits, ECF 1462-2. The contents of this document have not yet been made public, but it seems reasonable to speculate that this relates to Montgomery and the Seattle Operation.
Note: ★ Kimberly Seagraves later testifies in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings about a "found property report" authored by Mackiewicz, listing the Montgomery hard drives. See Seagraves' Oct. 1 testimony at 2162.
That report is apparently referenced and/or included as an attachment in the May 5, 2015 email exchange later admitted into evidence as Exhibit 2014 in the proceedings. It is unclear whether this Nov. 19 found property report is the same found property report referenced in the May 5, 2015 email string admitted as Exhibit 2014.
Nov. 20, 2014
Judge Snow holds a hearing to discuss several pending matters, including the continued fallout from the Armendariz investigations. See Transcript of Nov. 20, 2014 Hearing [ECF 803 (open portion of hearing); ECF 804 (initially sealed portion of hearing)]
At the end of the portion of the initially sealed portion of the hearing [ECF 804], MCSO counsel Thomas Liddy reveals that the Armendariz-related investigations “have revealed, and the MCSO has concluded, that this Court's [December 2011] order was not communicated to the line troops in the HSU. And so that has spawned an additional investigation up the chain of command as to exactly why they were not, and how it came to be that they were not." Id. at 67.
Judge Snow indicates he was already aware of this: “You know, just so that we can be open, let me just tell you that I had already directed Chief Warshaw, who's now on the phone, to begin investigating this.” (Id. at 69.) After noting that MCSO can’t investigate Arpaio, Judge Snow indicates that the monitor’s investigation will include an investigation into Snow. Id. at 69-70.
See also Jude Joffe-Block, “Judge Warns Arpaio He Could Be Held In Contempt,” KJZZ, Nov. 20, 2014; and Sean Holstege, “Judge warns Arpaio with contempt, more investigation,” Arizona Republic, Nov. 25, 2014.
Klayman files Arpaio v. Obama, No. 1:14-cv-01966 on behalf of Arpaio in DC Federal District Court. See also David Sherfinski, “Sheriff Joe Arpaio sues Obama, says action will result in more criminal aliens released,” Washington Times, Nov. 21, 2014.
Nov. 21, 2014
Michele Marie Iafrate files an appearance on behalf of Arpaio and MCSO. [ECF 796.]
Nov. 24, 2014
Judge Snow issues an order stating, in part, as follows:
"3. The time for the hearing set for December 4, at which parties may be heard on the procedures set forth in the Court’s November 20 Order, is reset for 1:30 p.m. At the hearing the Court will discuss possible additional proceedings, and depending upon the Court’s other rulings and inquiries, portions of that hearing may be under seal.
4. As is the case with any hearing in this matter, Sheriff Arpaio is welcome to attend. Nevertheless, any potential testimony by Sheriff Arpaio shall be deferred. The Defendants will provide and assist the Monitor as directed with all his inquiries and investigations.
5. The Clerk of Court shall provide a copy of this Order to Chief Assistant United States Attorney Elizabeth Strange. A representative of the United States Attorney’s office is requested to attend the December 4, 2014 hearing."
See ECF 797 at 1-2.
December 2014
★ Arpaio talks to Zullo and Mackiewicz about the idea of doing a final report on Montgomery's work and then handing it over to a different agency, correct? See Arpaio's Oct. 2, 2015 testimony at 2386. However, as of Oct. 2, 2015, that report has not yet been completed. Id.
Mackiewicz tells Kimberly Seagraves that the Seattle Operation investigation has been closed, according to Seagrave's Sept. 3, 2015 deposition testimony at 231 ("I was told by Brian Mackiewícz around Ðecember of this year it was closed. Q. Did you mean December of last year? A. Yes. I'm sorry. . . .")
Dec. 1, 2014
Arpaio files Motion for Determination of Counsel. [ECF 806.] “According to Jack MacIntyre (deputy chief and Arpaio spokesman), Arpaio’s ‘request for a court-appointed defense lawyer merely seeks to clarify if a federal judge thinks he really needs one.’” Ray Stern, “Arpaio Asks Federal Judge to Find Him a Criminal Defense Lawyer,” Phoenix New Times, December 2, 2014.
See also Ray Stern, “Arpaio's Request for Court-Appointed Lawyer Not What It Seems, Sheriff's Official Says,” Phoenix New Times, Dec. 2, 2014; Jude Joffe-Block, “Judge Considering Criminal Contempt For Arpaio,” KJZZ, Dec. 2, 2014; Sean Holstege and Megan Cassidy, “Could Judge Hold Arpaio in Contempt? Thursday Will Tell,” Arizona Republic, Dec. 3, 2014.
Dec. 2, 2014
Judge Snow grants Arpaio’s Motion for Determination of Counsel. [ECF 808 (PDF).] The order granting Arpaio’s motion is worth reading, as it sets forth some of the potential grounds for a criminal contempt proceeding against Arpaio. See also Ray Stern, “Arpaio May Have Covered Up Video Evidence, Can Bring Lawyer to Hearing, Judge Rules,” Phoenix New Times, Dec. 3, 2014.
Dec. 4, 2014
Judge Snow holds a hearing to discuss several matters and, also, to “lay out five areas of inquiry that I want counsels' participation on indicating why criminal contempt is at issue in this case matters.” See Transcript of December 4, 2014 Proceedings (ECF 817) at 5. After discussion, Snow set a January 8, 2015 deadline for briefing on the matter. Id. at 18-20.
See also Ashley Cusick, “Looks Like Arpaio Will Need That Lawyer: Sheriff May Face Civil and Criminal Contempt Charges,” Phoenix New Times, Dec. 4, 2014; Jude Joffe-Block, “Judge: Arpaio's Violations Require Court Action,” KJZZ, Dec. 5, 2014; Elizabeth Erwin, “Judge moves closer to contempt case against Arpaio,” AP/abc15.com, Dec. 4, 2014; and Sean Holstege, “Judge fed up with Arpaio defiance,” Arizona Republic, Dec. 5, 2014.
Dec. 5, 2014
Judge Snow holds a telephonic conference after the Court Monitor informs him that MCSO Counsel Iafrate is refusing to grant the Monitor access to MCSO personnel. See Minutes of Proceeding (ECF 819/text entry only); Transcript of Proceedings (ECF 828).
Dec. ?, 2014
★ Seattle Operation Exhibit. A Dec. -?- 2014 email from Zullo to Mackiewicz is later admitted into evidence as Exhibit 2935 in the Melendres 2015 contempt proceedings. See Mackiewicz Oct. 28, 2015 testimony at tbd.
According to an eyewitness at the Oct. 28 hearing, Zullo makes reference in this email to an email sent to Arpaio and the quote "You mean the phony info you handed MCSO about Snow," apparently referring to a communication with Montgomery. (Note: This information will be confirmed or clarified/corrected upon review of the transcript.)
Dec. 9, 2014
Judge Snow issues an "Order Amending Monitors Independent Investigative Authority." ECF 825 (PDF). As reported by Matthew Hendley:
Over concerns that MCSO employees "may continue to be engaged in efforts to frustrate the implementation of this Court's Orders, and may in fact be using the internal investigative processes to conceal widespread departmental misconduct," Judge G. Murray Snow has issued orders expanding the monitor's oversight of MCSO's internal investigations.
"He made it clear to MCSO that he had expanded his authority to conduct these investigations because MCSO did such a terrible job investigating their own officers," ACLU of Arizona executive director Alessandra Soler tells New Times. The ACLU of Arizona and others are representing the plaintiffs in the racial-profiling case.
* * *
[]MCSO was keeping all kinds of documents in the Armendariz case, citing privileged information. Snow in his order outlined giving Warshaw "complete access" to MCSO's internal investigations, and he's taken that order even further this week, with a new order that essentially clarifies that MCSO has to comply with the monitor's investigations. That includes clarifying that Warshaw has access to all kinds of documents, which, in the Armendariz case, had often been redacted.
Matthew Hendley, “Joe Arpaio's Monitor Gets Expanded Power to Investigate MCSO,” Phoenix New Times, Dec. 11, 2014.
Zullo emails Mackiewicz) re: “OZ.” See Melendres ECF 1166 at 21. Zullo states as follows:
Dennis [Montgomery]:
To answer the question, where we go from here, really is dependent upon you. A year-long investigation and tens of thousands of dollars invested, we have absolutely nothing to show for it. The 50 some odd drives we had in our possession shockingly turned out to contain nothing of any significance on any level whether Federal or pertaining to the Sheriff's Office. There was absolutely nothing of use on those drives. Overwhelming content of meaningless information does absolutely nothing to further your cause and obviously puts the Sheriff's office in a very precarious situation. Dennis I think the bottom line is if you have the information this is the time to provide. We have an extremely short window of opportunity to work in and the choice is yours. All you have to do is produce what you said you were going to produce in exchange for the dollars you received. But I have to stress to you the time is of the essence. We have been instructed to write up our final report and be ready to hand it over to a different agency. I really don't want to see it come to that but again the choice is yours.
Id.
Dec. 14, 2014
The Hollywood Reporter publishes an article on "The Joe Show," a documentary by Randy Murray about Arpaio. See Jordan Riefe, “'The Joe Show' Spotlights Controversial Sheriff Joe Arpaio,” Hollywood Reporter, Dec. 14, 2014.
"When Murray began the film he thought it would be a light profile of a controversial figure who bordered on buffoonery. “The further I went into discovering the evils that are coming out of that office, and were happening as a result of the actions of that office, if became more of a conflict for me,” says the filmmaker. “Toward the end of the election I asked him, Sheriff, people have lost their families, people have lost their freedoms and people have lost their lives, what would you do differently now that you know?” recalls Murray. “All he could talk about was running for president,” although Arpaio maintains he would run for governor first, then the White House.
Either way, Murray seems pretty certain Arpaio won’t run for either. “Since the (2012) election he’s already up to about four million by talking about running for sheriff again, which he’s not going to do,” says the filmmaker. “His power is not from his office, it’s that he can manipulate people from governors to congressman to senators to presidents. He uses his power of media to mobilize a very large army of people who are not completely aware of the facts. People are voting against their own principles and he’s riding that wave and taking advantage of them.”"
Id.
Dec. 15, 2014
Melendres Court Monitor Warshaw issues his Second Quarterly Report. [ECF 834.] From the concluding paragraph (id. at 83):
In the final analysis, with all the activities, the MCSO is only in compliance with 14 of 87 Paragraphs.[4] Organizational personnel from Sheriff Arpaio on down have been pleasant and cooperative in their interactions with the Monitoring Team. But civility and facilitation have not manifested themselves in the compliance findings nor in positive community perception as observed in the Community Meetings. The executive staff of the MCSO will have to create for themselves, and others, a level of expectation and excellence that can give better assurance to the public and the Court that the reform process has been institutionalized and can be sustained.
[4] Excluded from consideration are Paragraphs that are introductory in nature, and those Paragraphs that have been deleted or assigned to the Monitor.
★ Montgomery send an email to Zullo “re: Mike Flynn,” per Exhibit 2935 later admitted into evidence in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings:
“Mike Flynn threatened me with criminal prosecution for computer hacking based on tape recordings Tim Blixseth has made of me. In threatening me, he implicated himself and his own client
That is Mike Flynn logic for you.”
Zullo responds to Montgomery:
“jackass”
Montgomery responds to Zullo on Dec. 16.
Dec. 16, 2014
★ Montgomery responds to Zullo's Dec. 15 email (re: Mike Flynn), per Exhibit 2935 later admitted into evidence in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings:
“I never thought I would end up spending the rest of my life in a nursing home.”
Zullo responds to Montgomery:
“What actually is going on Dennis”
Montgomery responds to Zullo:
“Mike Flynn is using the threat of criminal prosecution in a civil matter. Outright blackmail and extortion. He claims he is going to the press.
Waiting to see is Washington Social Services can find me a nursing home bed.”
Zullo responds to Montgomery:
“Does Larry know”
Montgomery responds to Zullo:
“He is wrapped up in the Arpaio vs. Obama preliminary injunction hearing for Dec 22. The government filed their opposition last night, including a motion to dismiss to lawsuit.
In the meantime I go to a nursing home.”
Zullo responds to Montgomery:
“I don't understand why are you in a nursing home have you regressed”
Montgomery responds to Zullo:
“Yup. Fell again. Lost insurance. No meds, or doctor visits.
The family can't take care of me and get moved out of this home.”
Zullo responds to Montgomery:
“Dennis I just don't understand why you did not work with us and let us prove your case? It would have been so simple ...”
Montgomery responds to Zullo:
“Nothing is simple anymore.”
Zullo responds to Montgomery:
“yep”
Montgomery responds to Zullo (now “re: Arpaio”):
“I won't have internet or computers where I am going.”
Zullo responds to Montgomery:
“I guess there is nothing we can do ..”
Montgomery responds to Zullo:
“I guess not.”
Zullo responds to Montgomery:
“Ok \I will call Larry and the Sheriff and tell them that we can go no further ...”
Montgomery responds to Zullo:
“What do expect me to do? I had a serious stroke on May 12, 2014. I was hospitalized 6 weeks fighting for my life.
I worked as hard as I could despite me injury. I defy anyone else to have done the same.”
Zullo responds to Montgomery:
“I have heard all this before Dennis ... you never provide the source info .. no verification ..... parts of things never finished, parts of emails that we have no idea if you just made them up ... and the BC software that does not work ... What do you expect us to do? You have never proved the origin of anything ... not to mention the worthless hard drives we have ... you just want us to take you word for it... tell your story with absolutely zero proof of origin .... That can't happen ...”
Montgomery responds to Zullo:
“Easy for you to say because no one handed you a laptop while you were partially paralyzed from a stroke and demanded you work while in neuro ICU. And then when you were discharged, put you on a plane to talk to a federal judge as a whistleblower without immunity.
Not going to respond to your circular logic anymore. The drives were fine, and the information was accurate.
Use your NSA advisors to work on the data and the birth certificate. I did my best.”
Zullo responds to Montgomery:
“For the record ... You went to DC on your own and your Lawyer paid for it.. .. not us ... You had a lawyer with you in DC. ...You laid out your tale and you can't back up any of your accusations... Nice try .. Your family handed you a laptop not us ... You blame everyone else for all your troubles and expect everyone to hand you money .. Time to take responsibility like big boy .. No more games to be played .. You never had anything you said you did .... lot was uncovered on those worthless drives ... Like I told you it was a very bad day for you .. Time for the BS to end .. .”
Montgomery responds to Zullo:
“Stop making threats against me. I am tired of these abuses. I have been left disabled as a result of your recklessness in the first place.
MCSO pursued sensitive information against Judge Snow and we both know it. In fact you produced some of it to the DC judge in August.
I am amazed you could recruit some ex NSA people to help you collect more information on Judge Snow.
Remember I know MCSO's long history of altering digital data before it is put into evidence. I suspect that is why you never put my drives into evidence.
Don't contact me any further.”
Zullo responds to Montgomery:
“LOL every time you don't like it when you get told the facts you call them threats .. What a joke .. Always the victim aren't you ..
LOL!!!! You mean the phony information you handed MCSO about Snow .... LOL Dennis you don't fool me .. You think you do ... Making up emails as you went along .. Please!!! Thought I did not catch on did you.. Just like the cut a paste crap you handed us on those worthless drives .. All smoke and mirrors. It sucks when all the smoke clears ...
Ex NSA guys we used to expose you ..... Took them 17 munities ...”
Zullo forwards the above email chain to Mackiewicz without comment.
📄 ZULLO DOC. Zullo emails Mackiewicz at 14:37 re: "FW: Sony." (ZULLO 003728-31). This 4-page document is reflected in the "Fifth Amendment Privilege Log, which is later docketed in the Melendres 2015 proceedings as ECF 1507-6, filed in support of Plaintiffs’ Oct. 30, 2015 Opposition to Zullo's Oct. 26 Motion for Extension of Time (to find an attorney).
📄 ZULLO DOC. Montgomery sends an email to Zullo re: "Arpaio" at 14;41. (ZULLO 003656-59.) This 4-page document is reflected in the "Fifth Amendment Privilege Log, which is later docketed in the Melendres 2015 proceedings as ECF 1507-6, filed in support of Plaintiffs’ Oct. 30, 2015 Opposition to Zullo's Oct. 26 Motion for Extension of Time (to find an attorney).
📄 ZULLO DOC. Montgomery sends an email to Zullo re: "Arpaio" at 15:04. (ZULLO 003865-69.) This 5-page document is reflected in the "Fifth Amendment Privilege Log, which is later docketed in the Melendres 2015 proceedings as ECF 1507-6, filed in support of Plaintiffs’ Oct. 30, 2015 Opposition to Zullo's Oct. 26 Motion for Extension of Time (to find an attorney).
Dec. 21, 2014
📄 ZULLO DOC. Zullo sends an email to Klayman re: "Dennis" at 12:29. (ZULLO 003687-56-59.) This 6-page document is reflected in the "Fifth Amendment Privilege Log, which is later docketed in the Melendres 2015 proceedings as ECF 1507-6, filed in support of Plaintiffs’ Oct. 30, 2015 Opposition to Zullo's Oct. 26 Motion for Extension of Time (to find an attorney).
Dec. 23, 2014
Ray Stern reports that former MCSO Deputy Chief Brian Sand has released a second edition of his self-published book, Arpaio De Facto Lawman. Ray Stern, “Sheriff Joe Arpaio Is "Done," Says Arpaio's Former Top Aide, Book Writer Brian Sands,” Phoenix New Times, Dec. 23, 2014.
« 2013 |
2015 »
|
Last Updated: Dec. 5, 2015
Be notified of page updates |
Comments